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

You are right, you win. Your theory must be correct, since you have more believers. Is that how your science works?I was simply pointing out that there is honest disagreement, enough so that one side isn't "religion" while the other side is "scientific".

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.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?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? The nested hierarchy isn't a natural outcome of evolution, it's a detailed observation of the diversity we see *today*! All the animals are not evolving, but are staying within their own limits as dictated by their DNA. Evolution doesn't explain anything.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. Again, nothing is explained. What would be really powerful is if evolutionists could explain how mutations create new information on the DNA. Edited by Hughes, : forgot to reply to the second part...

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?

---

But by it's very nature it would have to be materialistic in nature as science cannot detect the supernatural. So I'm not sure what you are actually arguing.

Did I say it had to detect something supernatural? Detecting design is within the grasp of empirical science. Can't we detect design when we look at a bridge or automobile?

quote:

---

Can't we detect design when we look at a bridge or automobile?

---

That's a good question. Is it possible to detect design in a bridge or an automobile?

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

All you are pointing out is that there are certain doctors I wouldn`t be visiting to cure my ills. They use voodoo dolls to drive out demons?

Very true and crucial to a critique of the ToE. Exactly. Do you mean that since all the changes that have an effect are just choices among the range of chemical probabilities they aren't really new in that sense? I've been trying to figure this out myself.

This is a problematic area. I gather that Intelligent Design proponents view junk DNA as functional, as an expression of the Creator's design, since He wouldn't create junk. But to a Young Earth Creationist like myself, the existence of an enormously long nonfunctional segment of the DNA strand is probably evidence for gradual deterioration on account of the Fall and may in fact be evidence for the extreme bottleneck at the Flood.

Yes! Exactly! Well done. This has always been my favorite falsification. Unlike (as I think you mentioned previously), some observation that would falsify a particular technical aspect of the ToE - such as dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously - this would kill the ToE to the point the entire theory would need to be scrapped. Not revised, but scrapped. If molecular biology or genetics identified a barrier or mechanism that indicated "thus far and no further", the entire concept of descent with modification - a cornerstone of the theory - would be falsified, and the ToE consigned to the dustbin. Now all "you" (generically) have to do is find it.

quote:

---

Maybe He won't. Maybe He doesn't want this problem solved. That's crossed my mind many times. He wants trust in Him by faith. He may withhold knowledge in this particular theologically sensitive area for that purpose.

---

Or perhaps you've been mistaken all along and you are following a Satan-influenced false interpretation of the Bible.Perhaps God has allowed this problem to be solved already, and you have been misled by false prophets under demonic influence.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

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.

---

Do you refer to Methodological Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism?

There have already been several comments on this, but I'll add my voice. If you think evolutionary theory is a philosophy and not a theory then you have to make the case for this. And I don't know whether philosophies can be falsified or not, I've never thought about it, but I think you have to make the case for that, too. In other words, all you've got is assertions of your opinion.You go on to argue why evolution isn't falsifiable: The evolutionary ancestry of human beings is an interpretation of fossils and other evidence in an evolutionary context. It is not evolutionary theory.Evolutionary theory holds that species evolve from earlier species, and any fossil evidence that indicated this is not actually the case, such as finding human fossils of established antiquity in ancient layers, would represent a considerable challenge for the theory. In no field of science can one sample overturn established theory built upon mountains of evidence, so naturally such discoveries would have to be reinforced by other equivalent discoveries, but if a pattern emerged of modern fossils turning up in ancient layers then evolutionary theory couldn't help but be falsified. This would be an unexpected development of the first magnitude, because it would contradict all the work of the population geneticists in the first half of the 20th century that created the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory and genetics. If geneticists established that there were solid limits to genomic change, then they couldn't claim there had been insufficient time since that would mean the solid limits weren't really solid. And it would again be a stunning development of the first magnitude falsifying the synthetic theory of evolution. You're misrepresenting the judges ruling. He ruled that ID is not science, and that therefore the claims of ID, both about itself and about evolution, cannot be taught in science class. There is no prohibition against teaching about problems with evolutionary theory.To answer the question posed by the thread's title, yes, the ToE is falsifiable. If it were falsified then it would be a tremendous boon to Biblical creationism because evolution would no longer, one would presume, be taught in public school science classrooms. While Biblical creationism still wouldn't be taught, since it isn't science, evolution wouldn't be taught either, and the Biblical creationists would be very satisfied and we'd hear little from them anymore.From the standpoint of science it wouldn't advance the cause of Biblical creationism at all since none of its views are supported by evidence.--Percy

Not Darwin - JBS Haldane. One attribution has the entire quote as, "The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles." This was supposedly said to a cleric who had asked him what his studies showed of the mind of the Creator. Possibly apocryphal.

As it stands now, the judge was entirely correct. The 'scientiests' that were pushing I.D. obviously had a religious motive, and did not have any
facts on their side. Their entire 'evidence' for Intelligent Design is that there are some areas of unknown in evolutionary theory. Each and every 'scientist' promoting I.D. admitted they thought the 'intelligent designer' was god.The 'Intelligent Design' book that was being promoted in Dover was merely a 'creation science' book where 'Creation science' was taken out, and 'INtelligent design' was put in.Before 'I.D.' goes from philosphy/religion to science, it has to do certain things.1) It has to explain things better than evolution
2) It has to be make testable predictions.
3) It has to have evidence FOR it (rather than just attempts to attack evolution).
4) It has to have a way to falsify it.

Since you repeat this misinformation, I'll repeat the correction.The judge in Dover did not rule that teaching the difficulties of evolution was equal to promoting religion. The judge ruled that ID is not science but religion, and that its views on both itself and on evolution were not permitted in public school science classrooms. There is no prohibition against teaching problems with the theory of evolution.You concluded with this: This is an attempt to impress by citing a large number. When it was pointed that millions of doctors believe otherwise, you later replied in contradictory fashion: Is that how you argue, bait and switch? There are legitimate detractors to many scientific theories, rejection of Einstein's theory of relativity being the most common. No scientific theory has unanimity. Theories are accepted through consensus, and ratios like a thousand to one is an overwhelming consensus, so evolution is overwhelmingly accepted within the scientific community. Whether or not the 600 doctors you mention exist and have, just as you say, an honest disagreement with the consensus about evolutionary theory, they are such an extreme minority as to not represent any indication whatsoever of doubt within scientific circles of evolution's basic principles.--Percy