Topic: Is Creationism or God Falsifiable?

[jt512]

[Duplicate]

[IrishJazz]

Testable is a subset of falsifiable, to put it simply.

[jt512]

Testable is a subset of falsifiable, to put it simply.

That's so simple that it doesn't explain anything.  Can you offer an example of a hypothesis that is falsifiable but not testable?

ETA1: Now that I think about it, I think it's the other way around: falsifiable hypotheses are a proper subset of testable hypotheses.

ETA2: Never mind ETA1.  I just looked up "testability" on wikipedia, and I see that you are right that testable hypotheses are a proper subset of falsifiable hypotheses.  They define "falsifiable" to mean "falsifiable in principle," and "testable" to mean "falsifiable in practice."

Jay

[Shibboleth]

The simple claim, "There is a God" isn't falsifiable but that is why there is the caveat of, "Burden of proof." I can make all kinds of claims  at a bar that you cannot disprove but it isn't your job to show that they are false.

[MikeHz]

Intelligent design is a stickier wicket. If the claim is that and unspecified intelligence is gently guiding evolution by causing mutations favorable to some predetermined goal in an undefined manner, I would agree that that is unfalsifiable. And, I suppose, remotely possible. But NOT science.

That's not what Intelligent Design is, you've described theistic evolution.

Whatever you call it, the idea that evolution is under some intelligent control leads to some odd results. It would mean that the spider wasp, which stings a spider so that its offspring can feed on the feed on the paralyzed spider, is a part of God’s design. “Heh—let’s torture us some spiders. That'll be a hoot!"

Nature is full of such instances; things that would make no sense for an intellegent designer. 

I had a religious guy try to pull this on me a couple of weeks ago. He insisted that butterflies represent proof positive of God’s design. “The caterpillar wraps itself inside a cocoon and then completely dissolves and reforms into a totally different animal. No way could evolution have come up with that!”

I asked him what possible purpose God would have for going to such convoluted ends. Why not just have the butterfly lay eggs that hatch into other butterflies? For what possible purpose? Is God simply insane?  For this, the guy had no answers.

[Guillermo]

You can tell you professor that her proposed does not falsify creationism. Her proposal test if God can heal with prayer. The studies are there, you can find them if you have access to the archives of your universities library. Most Colleges and universities provide all papers for free to faculty and students, you just have to request them.

Creationism is falsifiable. (depending on the definition), so you should ask her what her definition is. If it is defined as you say, "god jump-started the world and let it roll naturally, then, creationism is not in opposition to evolution. This is the point of view of many Catholics (Vatican included).

As mentioned several times in this thread, there are many ways to falsify creationism. Depending on the predictions it can be tested. If they say that all animals where here at the same time, we would have been able to see evidence of that in the fossil record.

Keep track of their arguments, and visit talk origins for counters.

Keep us informed, I'd like to here more.

[IrishJazz]

[
Whatever you call it, the idea that evolution is under some intelligent control leads to some odd results. It would mean that the spider wasp, which stings a spider so that its offspring can feed on the feed on the paralyzed spider, is a part of God’s design. “Heh—let’s torture us some spiders. That'll be a hoot!"

Nature is full of such instances; things that would make no sense for an intellegent designer. 

I had a religious guy try to pull this on me a couple of weeks ago. He insisted that butterflies represent proof positive of God’s design. “The caterpillar wraps itself inside a cocoon and then completely dissolves and reforms into a totally different animal. No way could evolution have come up with that!”

I asked him what possible purpose God would have for going to such convoluted ends. Why not just have the butterfly lay eggs that hatch into other butterflies? For what possible purpose? Is God simply insane?  For this, the guy had no answers.

 Spiders catch and feed on living insects, who cares if another insect does the same to them?  It is only souls that count, and only mankind has souls.   

Or some such nonsense.  The apparent insanity of God, or even if He is a sadist with a sense of humor,  is not an argument against I.D.  The problem with the concept, aside from the fact that it explains nothing, is that, scientifically, it is unnecessary. 

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Intelligent design is a stickier wicket. If the claim is that and unspecified intelligence is gently guiding evolution by causing mutations favorable to some predetermined goal in an undefined manner, I would agree that that is unfalsifiable. And, I suppose, remotely possible. But NOT science.

That's not what Intelligent Design is, you've described theistic evolution.

Whatever you call it, the idea that evolution is under some intelligent control leads to some odd results. It would mean that the spider wasp, which stings a spider so that its offspring can feed on the feed on the paralyzed spider, is a part of God’s design. “Heh—let’s torture us some spiders. That'll be a hoot!"

Nature is full of such instances; things that would make no sense for an intellegent designer. 

I had a religious guy try to pull this on me a couple of weeks ago. He insisted that butterflies represent proof positive of God’s design. “The caterpillar wraps itself inside a cocoon and then completely dissolves and reforms into a totally different animal. No way could evolution have come up with that!”

I asked him what possible purpose God would have for going to such convoluted ends. Why not just have the butterfly lay eggs that hatch into other butterflies? For what possible purpose? Is God simply insane?  For this, the guy had no answers.

Yes, it's deeply flawed, the idea of a creator god to make a universe that looks very much as if there was no intelligence behind it. Ken Miller who is a theistic evolutionist believes that god directs the universe on the quantum scale where things appear to be random. It's a rather pathetic attempt to reconcile Catholic beliefs about our species special place and involvement in some grand plan. Due to the randomness of the universe, we might not be here, but because a god wants us to be here the dice have been weighted to always land for the universe to produce us. They say we could have ended up happening in a completely random universe without a god, but even if random chance had favoured a completely separate set of events god would have steered the numbers to lead to us.

The religious guy you talk about seems to be a creationist not an evolutionist. If someone thinks that evolution couldn't have produced something, they're a creationist. To anyone who understands evolution, metamorphosis is exactly the type of thing you'd expect, it's the opposite for something designed, and of course we know that it wasn't designed. For everything beautiful or useful as a metaphor, there's something equally horrible that's also useful for metaphors. In their way all creatures are beautiful to me, even parasitic wasps.

[vespine]

See if your library has God the Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger and loan it for her. This topic is precisely what that book is about.

[IrishJazz]

See if your library has God the Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger and loan it for her. This topic is precisely what that book is about.

I don't think anyone who believes in Creationism is going to read a book called "God: The Failed Hypothesis,"  I wouldn't read a book called "Knowing Jesus in Your Everyday Life."  Taking such a book out, and then giving it to someone who may not be open to its message is, at best, an act of faith and at worst an invitation to fines and replacement cost.  Safer to buy it used from Amazon for $3.

[vespine]

I wouldn't read a book called "Knowing Jesus in Your Everyday Life." 

lol, yeah you're totally right.... Pity because as I said, it precisely addresses the op: "she didn't believe Creationism was psuedoscience and that it could be falsifiable"

Buy it on amazon and photoshop a dust jacket for it with the title "The Sicence of Creationism" or something

[Fast Eddie B]

To be fair...

I have read "Darwin's Black Box", "The Case For Christ" and a variety of tomes on things ranging from flood geology to bible "difficulties".

Like to at least expose myself to arguments from "the other side".

And there may be some Christians with a similar bent.