Topic: Is Creationism or God Falsifiable?

[illtone]

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.)

[Anders]

There is such a study by the Templeton foundation. Let me see... can't find it right now, but it was negative. And all the faithful said - we knew from the beginning... God won't be tested. There's even Bible verses that specifically says so. So they make God unfalsifiable by refusing to contemplate the alternative - that there is no God.

[ting-bu-dong]

Are you talking about belief in a god or belief in creationism as an account of the diversity of life? Because the sorts of evidence and arguments that are relevant for each are not the same thing.

[Neon Genesis]

The existence of God could be falsified if it was proven that the universe had no beginning.

[MikeHz]

It's very easy to falsify creationism. Creationism makes certain claims regarding the age of the Earth, for example, which can readily be shown as false.

[341gerbig]

Sigh........ I wonder about a lot of professors I run into and hear about...... smart people that think they are to smart to be wrong about something a lowly student pointed out.

[Eternally Learning]

The problem for me is that while these things as defined certain ways are actually falsifiable (Young-Earth Creationism being a prime example), the history of people who hold these positions tends to be that they don't accept these falsifications when they are presented with them.  They shift goal-posts, adapt their positions with special pleading to account for what was falsified, or just plain ignore it.  Take the prayer tests; if the results aren't positive, they'll just say that God doesn't like to be tested, or that just because God can answer prayer doesn't mean that God does answer them.  They set up these things so that any positive result instantly proves their position, but any negative result is inconsequential.  That way they can just keep testing and testing until they get some results they like.

[MikeHz]

Sigh........ I wonder about a lot of professors I run into and hear about...... smart people that think they are to smart to be wrong about something a lowly student pointed out.

I was told by my professors that the draft would never be ended, since "No one will willingly volunteer to serve in the military," that gold would never be made legal, since "It would cause the collapse of the economy," and that no known homosexual could ever get elected to political office.

[Anders]

Are you talking about belief in a god or belief in creationism as an account of the diversity of life? Because the sorts of evidence and arguments that are relevant for each are not the same thing.

If the belief in god is false then creationism sort of collapses...

[illtone]

It's very easy to falsify creationism. Creationism makes certain claims regarding the age of the Earth, for example, which can readily be shown as false.

I think her idea of creationism is more like intelligent design, that is there was a god who sparked "it" all off, then the big bang and evolution occurred.

Are you talking about belief in a god or belief in creationism as an account of the diversity of life? Because the sorts of evidence and arguments that are relevant for each are not the same thing.

She was arguing that the hypothesis "There is a god that can heal" could be in principle (not necessarily in practice) empirically supported and tested, and thus the existence of god can be scientifically studied.

[MikeHz]

I think her idea of creationism is more like intelligent design, that is there was a god who sparked "it" all off, then the big bang and evolution occurred.

Really, there's no fun in being a creationist unless you're a young-Earth creationist. The whole point is to preserve the yarn in Genesis.

[341gerbig]

Sigh........ I wonder about a lot of professors I run into and hear about...... smart people that think they are to smart to be wrong about something a lowly student pointed out.

I was told by my professors that the draft would never be ended, since "No one will willingly volunteer to serve in the military," that gold would never be made legal, since "It would cause the collapse of the economy," and that no known homosexual could ever get elected to political office.

Smart people can be just as dumb as dumb people, but they think they cant be stupid, because they are a professor with degrees and papers and books and they educate and shape young minds, and people like that cant be wrong or believe in and support dumb things....

Reminds me of an old joke by James Randy:

There is a magical protein that they coat Phd diplomas in, and as soon as the graduates touch it, the protein travels up to their brain, enters their brain's speech centre, and takes away the graduates ability to say "I don't know" and "I was wrong"

[illtone]

The problem for me is that while these things as defined certain ways are actually falsifiable (Young-Earth Creationism being a prime example), the history of people who hold these positions tends to be that they don't accept these falsifications when they are presented with them.  They shift goal-posts, adapt their positions with special pleading to account for what was falsified, or just plain ignore it.  Take the prayer tests; if the results aren't positive, they'll just say that God doesn't like to be tested, or that just because God can answer prayer doesn't mean that God does answer them.  They set up these things so that any positive result instantly proves their position, but any negative result is inconsequential.  That way they can just keep testing and testing until they get some results they like.

That's what I was trying to tell her in class, which is why I'm asking you guys whether there is any result or observation from this experiment design that would necessarily contradict the hypothesis. Also I'm not exactly an expert on falsification, but if there is no result or observation that could contradict the hypothesis would that mean it's a bad experiment since it lacks the ability to falsify the hypothesis?

[illtone]

I think her idea of creationism is more like intelligent design, that is there was a god who sparked "it" all off, then the big bang and evolution occurred.

Really, there's no fun in being a creationist unless you're a young-Earth creationist. The whole point is to preserve the yarn in Genesis.

Well, she's still a scientist, so luckily she's not that prejudice against scientific theories like evolution. (not saying that there aren't scientist who are that prejudice.)

[Ajzzz]

I think her idea of creationism is more like intelligent design, that is there was a god who sparked "it" all off, then the big bang and evolution occurred.

That's not what Intelligent Design is. If someone believes that a god created the first organism and then evolution occurred, and that god doesn't interfere to overcome evolution's shortcoming but to guide it into the path they'd like (an analogy would be a farmer artificially selecting their livestock), then they believe in the fact of evolution, they're not a creationist, they don't believe in Intelligent Design. I don't understand how that's any better than a creationist in terms of honesty or logic, and the ones that defend creationism as just as valid as science are no better than creationists.

Do you think this example makes a good argument that God is falsifiable and therefore it's existence can be scientifically studied?

That god, one that answers prayers to heal the sick on demand, that god is falsifiable and has been falsified. There are other kinds of gods. A god can be compatible with evolution, and falsifying a god that grants prayers on demand has nothing to do with falsifying creationism. Creationism can be falsifiable,  but there are forms like Intelligent Design that aren't falsifiable. Falsifiable or not creationism is pseudoscience, the claims have either been falsified or they can't be, there's no genuine scientific enterprise into creationism as a theory.

edit:grammar