Stellatic writes:
I'm just wondering, but why do you think the third one is science and not religion? Most scientists use Poppers definition of a scientific theory: "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. )
Is model (3) better testable? I don't see why, but if you do, please explain why.
This is an excellent question and in rereading my post I see that I contradicted myself. When I wrote the previous post I misstated my point. I confused the idea of the development of the universe (after creation) with its creation. I would have to agree with you that all of these theories are equally unverifiable by science and as such I would not classify any of them as science. I believe they all fall into the class of religion.
With this stated I will give you a loose definition of what I see as religion. Religion (in my opinion) is a belief in the origins of the universe and our place in it. Religions for the most part are matters of faith and can’t be verified/falsified.
Model (3) is not testable any more than (2) and I agree with your conclusion that they are indistinguishable. Once you get the universe rolling I think that we both agree on the mechanisms by which it developed.
By the way, did you know the author of Ardism (J.R.R. Tolkien) was a christian? His works and also this 'creation story' are heavily based on his catholic background.
Yes, I was aware of this. (12 years of Catholic school will do that to you
) Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were both Christians of some stripe and if I recall correctly they were good friends. Their faith influenced their writings and I would venture to say in a positive way. They were both adept at using their beliefs in their writing without being preachy.
I think the post Message 22 basically answers your final question.
It did indeed. And I find that I am almost in complete agreement with you except that I would restate your proposition:
Proposition
Science can NOT make a distinction between model (2) and model (3). No conceivable event could favour/verify/falsify one of them and not the other one. Thus neither has scientific status.