Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory


Sasha wrote:
Theory: My balls are more intelligent than you are.
Proven Fact: Testicles are not sentient beings and do not possess a
measurable I.Q. Therefore, my statement is false.

Just because a belief or opinion is falsifiable does not mean that it
is science, even if scienc is used to falsify that opinion.

Actually, your example is a scientific theory. As you pointed out, you
falsified it. A consequence of the theory "my balls are intelligent"
is that testicles are sentient. But that consequence is untrue.

Now, I agree that some statements that are falsifiable are not
considered science. For instance, the statement "onside kicks are not
usually fumbled" is testable and falsifiable. However, no one is going
to include football as a scientific discipline.

This shows the futility between trying to decide what is science and
what is not. BTW, it's called the Demarcation Problem and no one has
found a satisfactory criteria to demarcate science from non-science in
over 400 years of trying.

So, stop trying. Let's face it, saying "creationism is not science"
says NOTHING about whether it is true or not. BUT, saying "creationism
is a falsified theory" does indeed say that creationism is not true.
So, I am actually making a STRONGER statement about creationism than
you. Why do you object in calling creationism a falsified theory?

Creationism makes testable statements about the physical universe.
This is what all scientific theories do. Creationism was considered a
valid scientific theory in 1800. Being falsified didn't drop it out of
science. If that were the case, then you have to consider numerous
scientific theories as no longer being science. No one is prepared to
say phlogiston wasn't a scientific theory, or that "phyletic gradualism
was the major mode of speciation" wasn't a scientific theory. Or that
Steady State wasn't a scientific theory. You kick a lot of scientists
out of science that way.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof. ... Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider ... Why does the definition of science always include "lab tested ... something true, you can't falsify it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... the definition of science to the point that the creationists religious ... Because creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. ... No. They're scientists. ... would not your attempt to falsify it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof. ... Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider ... mankind from dirt is not observable and has not been lab tested? ... would not your attempt to falsify it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris)
    ... explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs ... and need not be considered in a science class. ... A scientific theory fits *all facts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory
    ... is science, even if scienc is used to falsify that opinion. ... your example is a scientific theory. ... saying "creationism is not science" ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading