Creationists: How could we tell if your belief is wrong?

Question

Let's suppose someone claims that demons are responsible for disease. We say "But we know that bacteria and viruses cause disease" and they say "Oh sure, but demons are responsible for the bacteria and viruses that cause disease". We say "But we know that bacteria and viruses are a product of evolution, because we can see it happening every day" and they say "Oh sure, but demons are what cause bacteria and viruses to evolve the way they do". And so on, ad infinitum. There is absolutely nothing - no fact or discovery or deduction - that could possibly disprove the claim that demons cause disease, because the claim is consistent with all possible facts and all possible worlds. That's why a claim like this is not science.

Carl Sagan makes the same point about the dragon in his garage - He can claim it's there, and if you ask to see it he replies that it's invisible. If you ask to hear it, it's inaudible. If you ask to touch it, well it's not material so it can't be felt. And so on. There is absolutely no way you can possibly disprove that there is a supernatural dragon in his garage... but who's going to believe it's really there?

I would argue that creationism is the same - There is absolutely nothing we could discover which could disprove the belief. Any and all possible worlds would allow someone to make the claim without being disproved. That's why it's not science.

Evolution, on the other hand, is science, because it is falsifiable in many different ways - For example, if scientists discovered that mammals existed before the earliest reptiles, that would disprove evolution at a stroke, since evolutionary science clearly indicates that mammals evolved from reptiles. If a cat naturally gave birth to a dog that would also disprove evolution, since it is utterly inconceivable that hundreds of thousands of specific and necessary genetic changes could all happen by chance in one generation.

If any human gave birth to a baby which was found to have not DNA but a completely different kind of genetic code, that would also disprove evolution, since it is inconceivable according to evolutionary science that the same fundamental change could occur in all the genetic material from both parents by chance (and moreover, produce a viable organism). The list could go on and on - Evolution is valid science because it is falsifiable.

So, what potential falsification is there for creationism? If none, it's not science, but religious belief.

diamond_doll: That's never going to happen, but just as you don't need a 3D high resolution movie of a crime taking place in order to convict, punish and even execute the offender, so you don't need every detail from all of history to be confident that evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of living organisms.

bballchick92: Science is how we find out what is, or is not the truth. Anything else is self-refuting.

Methuselah: The point is that there are many different ways in which evolution *could* be falsified, but it has never been, in any of those ways. That's why we can be confident that it's true.

tim: That's all fine, as long as you check up on the claims with independent sources of information. I have. They're all lies, pure and simple.

diamond_doll: People are executed on the weight of evidence, not on 'PROOF'. The fact is, there is so much evidence for evolution that it's almost inconceivable that so much evidence, and so many different *kinds* of evidence, could all be exactly as evolutionary science says they should be and yet evolution not be true. It would be like saying that Queen Victoria never existed - sure, it's possible that masses of evidence was faked, papers were forged, witnesses lied, photos were done with special effects and so on... but the probability of all the evidence being there and her NOT existing is far, far smaller than if she really existed, so we're justified in assuming that she did. The same is true of evolution - the weight of evidence is such that the only rational viewpoint is to accept it.

Paul McDonald: Massive changes take massive amounts of time - millions of years - and we've only been studying the natural world for a few thousand years, so of course we've never directly seen what evolution can do over millions of years. Nevertheless, we *do* know that massive change has occurred, because it is unequivocably evident in the fossil record.

Evolution is necessarily slow, because the more changes which occur in one generation, the lower the probability of producing viable offspring. Evolution proceeds by constant testing and accumulation of small changes.

I don't understand your comment about a 'massive leap' of evolution. I don't know any biologist who makes such a claim.

Paul McDonald: The fact that we don't find 'massive leaps' is good evidence for evolution, because it is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Clearly, evolution is an unthinking and undirected process which cannot anticipate or work towards any kind of goal, or future 'design' of organism, so any evidence of 'massive leaps' in the development of living organisms would be very difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory.

I'm afraid that from this point on, your rebuttal is invalid because it is based on this strawman argument of 'massive leaps' of evolution.

As I said in my question, evolution is science precisely because (unlike creationism) it is falsifiable in many different ways. And yet, it has never been falsified. Draw your own conclusions.

Answer 1

I have felt the exact same way talking to evolutionists in the past.

They say that we all evolved from one life form. I say that no one has ever observed a massive change like that. They say that it happened a long time ago.

I say that if evolution were true, we could observe a massive evolutionary change somewhere on the planet within the last 200 years of recorded history. They say that evolution is very slow.

I say that if it were very slow, then complex organs and tissues could not evolve because slowly one organ would evolve and a counterpart organ or tissue would be a long time coming (like the eyeball, the optic nerve, etc). They say that body systems evolve slowly but in a "massive leap" of evolution.

I say that if there were a "massive leap" of evolution there would be a record of it somewhere. They say that there hasn't been a "massive leap" of evolution for millions of years.

I say that if there hasn't been a massive leap of evolution in millions of years, and that if life on the earth is 4 billion years old (which is more time than evolutionists currently allow), then there have only been about 1,000-4,000 "massive leaps" of evolution from single cell to me and this is not enough "massive leaps" of evolution to give us the life we have today on Earth. They say that evolutionary incidents occured faster in the past.

I say that if evolutionary incidents occured faster in the past then how could there ever have been such a large number of the same kinds of "prehistoric" animals found in the strata. They say that because the earth was so geologically violent back then that large amounts of rock and strata layers formed more rapidly.

I say that if the earth was more geologically violent back then how could evolution ever happen if it takes long periods of time.

And then they usually say that they have a PhD and I'm an idiot.

And that is why a claim like evolution is not science.

There. And I didn't even quote scripture.

Answer 2

The coelacanth was absent from the fossil record for about 65 million years if a fish cant be found what else wasn't found.We all know what is meant by evolution it is only science that has to change the meaning of words and evidence to back up it's claims.And as to falsifiable yeah evolution is certainly that in fact at least half of its suppositions are fake.The rest are wrong.
You claim evolution I say nothing but breeding whether intentional or unintentional when it comes to viral and bacterial morphology.

Answer 3

When science itself no longer uses the term "Evolution Theory" because every single missing link has been found, THEN we can talk.

to your rebuttle, if its never going to happen that it can all be PROVEN beyond any doubt, then you merely have faith that it is real and honest, based un unproven claims. Would you convict a man to death on the same grounds? No. If a prosecutor left out details, missed bits of time, it leaves room for doubt. Evolution is Missing important peices.

My faith merely lies in something diffrent. You asked what it would take to prove it. PROOF would prove it, yet you readily admit there will never be absolute proof.

Answer 4

I just went to a Creation Seminar. The main points were that of Genesis 1:1 and the time of the flood in Noah's day.

He told of what the world was like up to the flood and what happened during the flood, and how this relates to geography, fossils, ice caps, etc. And he pointed out all the holes in the evolution theory, and what things they can not explain, like human and dinosaur tracks together, melting ice caps, ozone, etc...

For more info, check out the web sites below.

Answer 5

Carl Sagan kept an invisible dragon in his garage?
That's just so cool!
My kids have a little pal they call "Googie". Now, I have never seen Googie, but I know he is there, because he has an insatiable appetite for chocolate chip cookies.

The problem is, people just can't seem to separate what is physical from what is spiritual. One thing science will never prove or disprove, and that is, no matter how it got done.....

.....God did it.

Answer 6

Does anyone else think this is a rant without basis?
You could take a hundred different angles like this and still be off base.
I don't think demons cause diseases, I think they are part of a broken, fallen world.

Answer 7

Common sense/having the IQ of a 3 year old or better would show creationism to be wrong.

Answer 8

But how does any of that prove that its creationism is wrong? So what if its not "science" its still the truth

Answer 9

The answer is in the bible for some, in our beliefs for others, and in our faith for still more! What does science have to do w/what one believes?

Answer 10

Well said. It would be nice if it actually had an effect.