Corey Hammer

You misunderstand the meaning of falsifiability.

It means that the hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, not that it is wrong, but that it is possible for it to be incorrect.

If given a situation where the hypothesis predicts one outcome but another is found instead, then the hypothesis is falsified. This is basic Popper. Is it difficult to understand? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Corey Hammer ]</p>

Shadow Wraith

Oolon. Great post. Definitely a classic. Too bad cretinists would rather immediately blast it should they see it than actually analysing their base beliefs.

Jayhawker Soule

Ditto. But, in all fairness, the other side of the argument deserves mention. I found the following posted by Maurile Tremblay in another forum - hope he won't mind me sharing it here ...

<a href="http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp16.html" target="_blank">The Scientific Evidence for Creation!</a>

Seriously, Oolon, you and others have proven to be remarkably valuable resources for folks like me. It's much appreciated.

John Solum

Here's what the ICR has to say about scientific evidence for creationism:

ohwilleke

To clarify and not flail at the straw man arguments, the part of evolution that most creationists have trouble with is the notion of mutation, a real phenomena, but not an obviously possible one. Many creationists can understand the notion that selective breeding (of cattle, people, whatever) can favor traits existing in the gene pool of an organism with a specific number of genese. The harder part for many creationists is how it is possible that an 8 gene'd animal becomes a 26 gene'd animal, or a trait never before present in the gene pool (e.g. ability to process red wine to cut down cholesteral) arrives in the gene people. It is at that point that most creationists scratch their heads and say God did it.

The problem with the selection tautology, is that it implies that getting from point A to point B is simply a matter of selective sexual reproduction. It helps to recognize that modern evolutionary theory has more essential parts than that to hold, and that each of those essential parts is falsifiable, to see why evolution is a provable theory distinct from a creationist view.

Peez

As far as the theory of evolution goes, I tend to agree with you, but I think that the real problem that creationists have is not with the theory of evolution so much as the fact of evolution (though they rarely know the difference). The simple fact that we have evolved from a common ancestor with other life forms riles them no end, and they object to it on purely emotional grounds. This leads them to reject any theory about how it might have happened, as the reject the fact itself.

Peez

wdog

I hope that was a joke.

Oolon Colluphid

That has got to be one of the cruelest and least PC statements I've ever seen.

Perhaps the blindness they have in mind is that caused by untreated (as it always would have been till recently) neonatal gonococcal ophthalmia, caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection. (What? Pathological bacteria weren't created by god?! ) Talk about the sins of the parents being visited on the children...

Ohhh, it's meant figuratively... Sorry ICR, I was following your lead with the bible...

If these evidences are so transparent, how could anyone fail to see them?!

Idiots.

TTFN, Oolon

Secular Pinoy

If you miss the original website, I've managed to take a snapshot of it. <a href="http://dannybhoy1.tripod.com/files/icr_pic.htm" target="_blank">Check it out!</a>