[xeno] Julios writes:
The evolutionist will always be able to provide "positive" evidence, by merely engaging in thought experiments using "natural" selection as a model. Perhaps this is indicative of the low level of falsifiability of the theory.
A thought experiment is not evidence. Anyone claiming that a hypothetical scenario is evidence in favor of evolution is incorrect. Such exercises are merely projections of an evolutionary framework onto a puzzle of natural history.
Thus, ultimately, the best a creationist can do (imo), is to provide NEGATIVE "evidence" to the contrary based on statistical improbabilities.
The Creationist argument from unlikeLihood is most often raised in reference to abiogenesis, the origin of life. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this type of arguments, but it has to address the actual scenario proposed by evolutionists. For example, Creationists often state that the likelihood of a cell coming together spontaneously from constituent chemicals is 1 in 1^100. Evolutionists would agree and feel untroubled, since they propose no such scenario.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
