Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

quote:

---

My accusation that ToE isn't science but philosophy, is based in the fact that it's directly tied to the philosophy of naturalism.

---

All science is. Astronomy can't directly prove that angels DON'T guide the planets in their orbits. Nevertheless materialistic theories that explain those orbits are accepted, and no scientist goes looking for supernatural alternatives. It is the same in EVERY field of science. All the major theories are materialistic and no supernaturalistic alternative is considered.

quote:

---

For example. ToE doesn't explain the diversity of life at all. It simply waves one's hand and states that all are descended from a common ancestor. It in no way explains how or why such diversity exists.

---

You are wrong. Firstly evolution explains the nature of that diversity very well - the nested hierarchy is a natural outcome of evolution. Secondly evolution leads us to expect diversification. Splitting of species is required by evolution - and if species split then we would expect them to follow different trajectories of evolution.

quote:

---

So, in your own admission, ToE is not science but philosophy. And will never be falsified because it's based on what all science is based on, the philosophy of Naturalism.

---

As usual a creationist resorts to misrepresentation. I simply pointed out that your claim that evolution was philosophy and not science was false since other major areas of science were equally naturalistic. I did not admit that evolution was "philosophy" any more than any other science is. And I said nothing about falsifiability.

quote:

---

Here's a problem. What if design is detected? What if evidence is discovered that shows the assumptions (and that's what they are) of naturalism are false? Doesn't following an unfalsifiable philosophy hold science back?

---

Another typical feature of creationism is irrationality. If supernatural design were reliably detected in life it would at least partially falsify evolution (how far depends on what features are identified as designed). So your initial question assumes that evolution can be falsified, contradicting your claim that it cannot.

quote:

---

For example. Junk DNA. How do we know they are "junk?" They are assumed to be Junk based on faulty assumptions. This assumption alone has put study of said DNA on hold, and set it back how many years?

---

Larege amounts of unused DNA are a surprise to evolutionary scientists, too. There has been little research into much "junk" DNA because it has no identified function and therefore other areas of research are more promising. So I'd say that science would have been held back IF more investigation had been done because it would have taken the place of more productive work. Even if it were all to turn out to have some obscure function it is likely that we could not identify it until we understood other aspects of DNA more.

quote:

---

The nested hierarchy isn't a natural outcome of evolution, it's a detailed observation of the diversity we see *today*!

---

Unfortunately for you it IS an expected outcome of evolution - as a species splits the descendant species will carry many of the originals species distinctive traits, as will their descendants. ANd that produces a nested heirarchy.

quote:

---

The "splitting" of species is not an increase in information on the DNA. If anything it's a decrease, a loss of abilities or information

---

Yet the splitting of species requires that the descendant species acquire traits which distinguish them forom the parent species and from their sibling species. If that doesn't involve an increase in what creationists call "information" then evolution doesn't need it.Of course the whole "informatioon" argument is an exercise in obfuscation. Creationists don't even know what it means and can't offer any valid argument to show that it is a problem at all.