Hi, I sent this question to "Ask The Skeptic" but I thought I also mine as well post this here.
While in my Cross-Cultural Psychology class the topic of Creationism and Evolution came up, we were discussing home schooling and I brought up that I didn't like how some parents just do it to indoctrinate their children into thinking evolution is wrong and creationism is right. (or how much bigger a role political bias can play in home schooling in general) Then all hell broke loose. (Particularly because one of the students in there is a product of exactly that kind of education.)
My professor stated she didn't believe Creationism was psuedoscience and that it could be falsifiable, so naturally I asked, "How?"
She went on to present this elaborate study design. "Our hypothesis is that there's a god that heals. We have a group that is prayed for and a group that isn't, if the group being prayed for is efficacious then it's best explained by our hypothesis, because how else can you explain it?"
She went on to suggest further that we could narrow down the study, "we could create multiple groups to be prayed for by people of different religions, even atheists who would just 'wish' the people to get better. Then we compare and contrast to see which 'prayer group' is more efficacious. If a prayer group is more efficacious than others it's best explained by the hypothesis."
Regardless of what Prayer studies actually show her point is that, at least in principle, the idea of a God that can heal can be scientifically tested.
Do you think this example makes a good argument that God is falsifiable and therefore it's existence can be scientifically studied?
Thanks for the reply!
(Also I'm still not sure how she thought this example demonstrates creationism can be falsifiable.)