Evolution is False; now what?

quote:

---

The publication of On Critical Rates of Phenotype Change by Natural Selection in the November 2004 sent shockwaves through the scientific community, if it's findings where true it did nothing less than prove that one of the most successful and longest standing theories of all time - Evolution - was wrong. Inevitably following it's publication many scientists refused to believe it, many dedicated weeks on end to searching for the flaw but one by one they came to the conclusion there was none. Others took longer to make up their minds but, in the view of most, it was the shock press conference in February 2005 by Dr. Richard Dawkins that finally ended the argument in the public eye. The grim faced professor publicly stated "There can be no more doubt, Evolution is false - my life's work has been a sham. The only consolation I can draw is that this event has shown conclusively that Evolution was indeed science as it could be falsified." He went on to announce that he would be withdrawing all his books from sale with immediate effect.

---

The above is, of course, fiction but let us assume that the above did happen. What would this mean for Creationism? Can it step up to the plate and provide an explanation for the variety, diversity and nature of life on earth?

Sorry, forgot that. Is It Science? I imagine.

Obviously all the facts aren't changed, and they still need to be explained. And here's the thing I don't think Creationism has either the capability or the desire to fill the gap which would be left by the absence of evolution. It seems to me that there are no Creationist answers to questions such as:Why are there so many kinds of Beetle?
Why are 'gestalt' style colonies nearly always found in certain groups of insects?
Why are animals distributed in the ways they are?
Why do some animals carefully nuture their young and others leave them to fend for themselves?It also seems to me that there are no creationist attempts to answer these sorts of questions. With the ability to take pot shots at evolution removed from them, what is left for creationism? Can it bring anything to our understanding of the world?

I'm not missing the point at all. That is my point. I wanted the creationists to defend their position without attacking evolution hence the fictional setup in which evolution was removed from the picture.

So, Robert, would you care to address the questions I posed in Message 7 from the point of view of Creationism, and demonstrate how Creationism can be used to answer the biological 'why' questions arrising from the variety and nature of the plants and creatures of the earth?

Unfortunately there is no agreement on that issue, and current QM theory can't answer it. Both String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity however imply that there is a 'before the bang'.