Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[Jose]

nikolayevich wrote:

There is no direct, testable evidence for origins of the universe. No matter your position.

You cannot directly test nor observe:
The Big Bang
Abiogenesis
Macroevolution

You are correct that abiogenesis has not been observed. But, the only argument against it is that the Bible says God did it. And, the Bible was written billions of years after it happened. If the Bible is God's word, then, maybe God did do it. But, if the Bible is the collected works of one people's verbal history, and is written by humans under the belief that they are speaking for God, then all bets are off. I subscribe to the latter view--that, because there are so many Holy origin stories, and they are all different, either God is telling different things to different people, or these are the stories that each culture has developed to explain what seemed to them to be unexplainable.

Given this view, the logical thing to do is look at the clues left in geological and biological systems, and try to piece together a plausible mechanism. We don't have enough data yet to propose such a mechanism. But, if God didn't do it, there has to be some other explanation. For now, at least, the ultimate explanation is uncertain--but uncertainty about the explanation is not proof that one particular Holy Book provides the only possible answer.

For the big bang, we have to look at the data. Atronomers observe that every star so far examined is moving away from us at some particular speed. Calculation of the speeds, and of the distances at which different stars or galaxies lie, offers information suitable for extrapolating backward in time. This mathematical logic leads to only one result: everything is moving away from a point. If so, then everything had to be collapsed within that point at one time, and had to explode out of it. What was that point? We don't know. Maybe the Black Hole that Ate All of the Previous Universe, and once it filled up, it eventually exploded. That's a guess, of course, and is probably wrong. There is no evidence to support it.

And last, we come to "macroevolution." Now, I know what this term meant when it was initially invented by early evolutionary biologists. That definition is no longer in vogue, since newer information has supplanted it. Some evolutionists now say that the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are so badly misrepresentative of what we now understand that they should be abandoned.

To address your question, I'll need to know your precise definition of "macrovevolution." Without knowing this, I cannot speak to the issue. If, by macroevolution, you mean some process that cannot occur evolutionarily, then I would agree with you that such a process cannot be observed. If you mean something else, however ... So, what does "macroevolution" mean to you?

nikolayevich wrote:

You can submit all the documented experiments, all the observable data collected by various of the evolutionary realm. But I contend that by definition, the above are unobservable. Therefore, by way of reasoning that these are critical to the events of evolution, it is a formidable challenge, and can be stated that one may only find indirect confirmation of the theory.

Well, by definition the Big Bang, a one-time event that occurred some time ago, is currently not observable. Similarly, abiogenesis is as well. Thus, you are right that indirect evidence is required. This does not make the indirect evidence wrong. If I drop a book onto the floor and leave the room, and someone else comes in and finds the book, it would be indirect evidence that someone dropped the book. Other alternatives exist, such as the book jumping there by itself, or supernatural forces moving it. We cannot rule out these other possibilities, so we conclude that the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that someone dropped the book. If someone saw me leave the room shortly before the book was found, we can improve the precision of our best-fit explanation: it looks as if Jose dropped the book. There is nothing wrong with indirect evidence. The important thing is that the proposed explanation is consistent with all of the indirect evidence that exists.

Macroevolution however, may well have been observed. To assess this, I'll need your definition of the term.

nikolayevich wrote:

We should all make no mistake that there are words at the most critical parts of many theses which follow the language, "the authors believe..." or; "she has shown good evidence to support..." or; "it seems unlikely that there could be any other explanation for..."

These words are essential, for reasons explained above. There are always alternative explanations, such as a book walking around the room by itself when no one was looking. This is a silly example, but may make the point. Additional information may be found in the future, and force us to change our interpretation of the data. Therefore, it is invalid to say "the data prove that..." Rather, one must say "the data suggest..." or "the authors interpret the data to mean..." or some such waffling. To state categorically that "my answer is RIGHT" implies infallibility, and infallibility is not a human trait.

Perhaps, of course one could say that this phrasing leaves room for theistic explanations. And so it does. Maybe God moved the book. But, if we choose this explanation for every phenomenon, then there is no point in looking at the world. The point of science is to see how far natural processes extend, and what can be explained by them.

nikolayevich wrote:

I've mentioned previously that there are too many fields of science for one man or woman to study evolution exhaustively enough not to have to appeal to authority in confirmation of their beliefs. If you appeal to authority, you must have faith in that authority.

All scientific fields are too broad for one person to study every detail. Evolution is even worse, since supporting evidence comes from many different fields. But, do scientists appeal to authority? I think not. They appeal to the data. We look up old reports (which describe data) when we need to check whether current ideas fit old data. We look up old reports to see if long-held interpretations really do fit the data that was reported at that time, or whether new information can explain why the authors' explanation needs to be discarded in favor of a new explanation. We don't believe that what someone said is right. We believe that the data have a logical explanation, and if we agree on an explanation of the data, then, well, we agree. The only "faith" is that authors have been truthful in reporting their data. Usually they are; enough studies replicate other studies to discover frauds. That frauds (like Piltdown Man) are discovered demonstrates that the system works pretty well.

This is a fundamental difference between evolution and creation. Evolution is a series of explanations based on observations, replicability of observations, and data interpretation--with the built-in notion that anyone may supplant anyone else's interpretations by providing data that force us to re-evaluate what we think. Creation is an explanation based on scripture, and often on a strictly literal reading of one particular translation of scripture. Because this one book is the source of truth, it cannot be questioned. Scientists are always questioned. One of the major lessons in graduate school is how to ask questions about whether a speaker or an author really has adequate support for a conclusion. We are trained to prove each other wrong. In the face of such efforts, it is a major feat that any theory can have remained strong--and gained in strength--for as long as evolution has. Creationists trying to disprove evolution do far less at trying to find fault than do competing scientists. And, the scientific fight is so fierce because the stakes are so low--who gets credit for publishing first.

[harmonium]

The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Just because some Christians and Jews have found common ground doesn't take away from the fact that the original intention of evolutionary theory was to explain the origin of life in a completely naturalistic way.

This would be an acceptable argument if there was some kind of church of evolutionary theory. The "naturalism" you speak of is only diametrically opposed to the idea of God because you think it is. This non-evolution God is not the only view of Christianity that is out there, it is only for Creationists.

And so we still disagree..

According to Websters, it defines naturalism as "The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will."

I don't think the idea that naturalism is diametrically opposed to the idea of God is true just because I think it is. Rather, it is a fact that in the framework of naturalism the existence of a God is denied, while in the framework of creation, the existence of God is affirmed. Logically only one can be true because both views contradict one another. Yes, some Christians believe that God used evolution to create life, however, that's not naturalism anymore (it goes specifically against the definition of naturalism). In naturalism God cannot exist and in Christianity God must exist. If that's not diametrically opposed than what is?

Your Watson quote is specious.

The only point of the quote was just to show an example of an evolutionist that saw that special creation and naturalism were diametrically opposed and I think it did that.

A single source? Ideas and thoughts about God come from all different cultures all throughout the earth and spans thousands of years. Where is the single source in that? The bible itself is not a single source but 66 books written by about 40 different authors over about 1500 years.

I don't know where to start with this.

1) "all cultures throughout the earth" is clearly not true. The Judeo-Christian God was revealed only to the peoples of Judea. That it spread from there is not relevant because the "revealing" (?) was only done to these people.

I think you misunderstood me here. All I said that that "ideas and thoughts about God come from all different cultures through the earth....". I wasn't talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian God, I was just referring to the idea of God which obviously is very universal and doesn't originate in a single source. However, even the bible itself has many stories of God revealing Himself to all sort of people in many different cultures. So, clearly the idea of God does not come from a single source, which was the point I was debating.

In addition to that, yes, the Bible is primarily about the revealing of God to the descendants of Israel, however it definitely is not limited to that. Most of the book of Genesis is about revelations of God to people before Israel's descendants were defined as a people group, and subsequent to that many books deal with other peoples and with diverse locations. For example, that the book of Job, Job is a book that many scholars believe to be one of the oldest books of the bible and Job is not a Jewish person and the setting is not in Judea. Also, many other books of the bible were written in diverse places, such as the book of Daniel which was written in Babylon, with several chapters written by a Babylonian king. Two of the key books of the New Testament (Luke & Acts) were written by a Greek. Much of the New Testament in fact was written by various authors throughout the Roman empire. Some books are written by kings, some by a shepards, others by intellectuals. The diversity is overwhelming if you take the time to actually read it.

Incredibly, an amazing aspect to this is that many of the authors of the 66 books that collectively is called "the bible" were not even aware of each other at the times they lived and wrote in. Many of the books stand uniquely on their own as single pieces of literature and yet there is a harmony between each of them.

Yes, all these books have been assembled into a single volume today (the bible is not a book, it is a collection of books) but I don't see how that diminishes the fact of their diversity. The bible's strength hinges upon the fact that is it not just a singular revelation, but multiple revelations, each one with different perspectives ultimately upon the same God. It is starkly in contrast to, for example, the book of Mormon and the Koran, which are both examples of singular revelation from God to a single individual. There is a world of difference in that single fact alone between the bible and both those books.

2) The "thousands of years" figure is misleading because subsequent thought was based on the ideas from only one source.

How is "thousands of years" misleading? The bible is a collection of 66 books that was written over 1500 years. Scholars that view the bible as a complete myth agree to this. Why is this even a point of debate? The actual physical manuscripts in existence that substantiate this fact are more numerous than any other ancient text.

3) For hundreds of years, the Church treated the Bible as a single source, so the literature and ideas that arose from it during this time can be considered as rising out of a single source.

I'll be the first to admit that "the Church" historically has made some pretty big mistakes. However, I think you may have the wrong idea on how the church has viewed the bible. I think the term "single source" in this context is misleading because the church has always recognized that the bible consisted of 66 separate books. The fact is that the church didn't even assemble much of the bible, they've really only been an agent of preservation. Most of it was assembled centuries before, for example with the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation from the original Hebrew texts and it dates around 270 BC. The Old Testament is more than 3/4 of the bible. The church really only assembled the New Testament books and build those upon the books of the Old Testament which had already been agreed upon centuries before. I don't understand your point about the literature and ideas that arose from the bible...what does that have to do with proving your point?

4) You seem to be admitting that the Bible is not the Word of God, but in fact was only written by the hand of man. If you do not buy into this single source theory then you must accept that God had nothing to do with writing the Bible, because God can be considered to be the single source.

Well, I guess you're definitely making assumptions then. The stance of Christianity is not that God literally took a pen and paper and wrote the book of the bible, no Christian I've heard of believes that! In fact, the bible doesn't say that - it says that God decided to use humans as messengers of his Word. What the bible says is that God choose certain humans to be His message bearers, and those people he inspired to write down the words he gave them.

So, obviously I do believe that ultimately God is behind the words in the bible, but as far as it being a single source as far as our physical reality is concerned, I definitely don't believe that. The bible doesn't say that and it doesn't even make logical sense. Since God is an infinite being, he himself is not a "single source" and I think to reduce him down to that is contrary to how the bible explains things.

Although abiogenesis is not a part of this argument, I see where you're coming from, I really do. You see both God and abiogenesis as unknowable and so you come to the conclusion that both must have equal scientific weight. It's a very tempting way to think, but it just doesn't work this way. God is unknowable not because we don't have a time machine or a heaven transport device -- God is unknowable because in the definition of God is the transcendence of materiality, i.e., science and logic do not apply to God.

I do not need to take a "step of faith" as you call it in order to keep evolution as a working theory. It is the best theory we have that fits the evidence. Faith is irrelevant. I do not have "faith" in evolution, I just think it's true. The difference here is in world-view. If I had "faith" in evolution, I would not need evidence in order to make me believe in it. But I do need evidence. I am a skeptic about everything. When presented with evidence, I don't find myself asking, "How does this fit in with evolution?" I find myself asking, "How the heck can this be explained?" So far, evolution has been the best answer.

I don't see how we are going to agree on this one. I've made my point and you've made yours and do both understand each other for the most part. However, it still seems to me like you have "faith" in evolution, at least that's how it appears to me based upon my understanding of faith. Especially regarding abiogenesis, since you mention it, for which I personally have never even seen a probable explanation. (if you could point me to one I'd gladly check it out) You are definitely correct that we are dealing with two different world views here, however that doesn't mean there aren't also many similarities between the views.

For example, I would have to disagree that God is unknowable because despite the fact that he is a materially transcendant being the bible clearly states that he has made himself known through the creation. This is especially related to the person of Jesus, who was God who came in human form, specificially so that we could know God. I obviously don't expect you to believe this if you are not a Christian, however I hope you see that because of this my belief in God is based in logic and reason. It is not a leap a faith, but a faith that is grounded in logic, historical evidence, and yes, scientific evidence.

In the same way I don't expect your believe in evolution to be a leap of faith. In my perspective both are reasonable faiths, in that there are unknowable aspects of both beliefs (which brings faith into both of them) but at the same time you can reason and demonstrate evidence for either view.

[Abulafia]

exactly!! its proposterious to think that evolution is truth.

I'm joining this debate late in the game, so I hope I'm not flogging too many dead horses here...

I should also say that this post deals only with rigorous and evidential based theories of Creation or Evolution. IE: any worldview which proposes that we should assent to a belief despite the evidence rather than because of the evidence is not included in this discussion.

Any view which would be labelled Creationist or Evolutionist is putting forth a model for interpreting the world around us.

Some of these models are invalid. They either have internal contradictions, or are contradicted by counterexamples provided through experience, or overwhelming evidence.

When a model from either camp is invalidated, it can either
1) In the case of internal contradictions, resort to the "It's contradictory but it's the best we've got" line or argument
2) In the case of external contradictions, poke holes in the supposed contradictory evidence
3) Refine their theory
4) Re-interpret their theory (really this is #3 without admitting that the theory needed refinement)
5) Develop an alternate theory which has equal or greater capacity to explain the world, and resolves the contradictions.

(Are there other options worth mentioning?)

There are innumerable models offered for Creation or Evolution. These theories evolve (in a sense which has no bearing on the question at hand... memetic evolution is NOT what I'm labelling as "Evolutionism") as they are challenged. New theories or revised version of old theories pop up, and the debate continues.

An attack on any GIVEN model is NOT an attack on Creation or Evolution.

Discovering contradictions in Lamarckian evolution does not invalidate evidential belief in evolution. Nor does poking holes in the best current evolutionary theory. It just means that the subscribers to that given model need to use one of the steps mentioned above (hopefully one of 2-5).

Likewise, poking holes in the belief that the Universe, Earth, and Birds & Animals were created in 144 hours doesn't invalidate Creationism. Nor does poking holes in intelligent design.

If there were ever a time when:
- ALL the models of one camp or the other had irreconcilable contradictions in them
- NONE of the models of that camp could use steps (1-5)
- No new model for that camp could be presented which was more successful than the extant models

THEN one could ridicule the camp (it doesn't seem very nice or useful, but I suppose one could).
Until that time though, both camps are pursuing the scientific process: constant revisions of models with an eye on truth (and predictive ability). This is laudable, and while one may take issue with any given claim or model, it is not merely uncharitable but unreasonable to dismiss either camp.


I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps the most useful path to truth in regards to evolutionism or creationism is to take the best models in each (there are several "best" models in each, depending on your assessment of the evidence), debate their points, look for inconsistencies, and thus let all viable models be refined.

[Abulafia]

nikolayevich wrote:

If you appeal to authority, you must have faith in that authority.

But, do scientists appeal to authority? I think not. They appeal to the data. We look up old reports (which describe data) when we need to check whether current ideas fit old data. We look up old reports to see if long-held interpretations really do fit the data that was reported at that time, or whether new information can explain why the authors' explanation needs to be discarded in favor of a new explanation. We don't believe that what someone said is right. We believe that the data have a logical explanation, and if we agree on an explanation of the data, then, well, we agree. The only "faith" is that authors have been truthful in reporting their data. Usually they are; enough studies replicate other studies to discover frauds.

It seems to me that scientists do appeal to authority, and tend to have faith in it. The key is that none of these authorities is taken as infallible. By appeal to and faith in authority, I mean it in a few different ways.

Perhaps the least relevant way has to do with bias:
In an epistemology class, my prof. brought up the example (I wish I could give the citation) of a study that was done in which articles were submitted to various scientific publications and attributed to scientists from different countries. Very similar (if not the same) articles were used, with the primary difference being simply the country of origin of the research. By a significant percentage (again, sadly I can't remember exactly what percentage) the papers from "western" countries would be accepted, whereas the ones from "poor" countries would be dismissed. This example is least relevant as it has to do with human bias, not with scientific method.

Perhaps the most relevant way relates to Kuhne's The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science, in which he points out that the traditional view of science as involving testing a theory via measurement is drastically oversimplified, and that an authoritative theory is generally relied upon to determine how to measure things accurately. The theory helps define the measurements, which reinforce the theory. That's not to say that it's all airy-fairy and that a scientist can prove anything they like, but it does indicate that there is a reliance on authority and authoritative ideas which needs to be taken into consideration if science is going to yield the best results.

I think the bottom line is that while scientists do rely on authority, they also (should) always regard those authoritative sources/models as both fallible and subject to re-testing, re-examination, and revision.

[Abulafia]

And, the scientific fight is so fierce because the stakes are so low--who gets credit for publishing first.

I dunno... it seems to me the stakes in scientific debate are rather high...

Firstly, who gets credit for publishing what (and whether or not it's really accurate or whether it's flawed) is something I think a lot of scientists consider a huge deal. Hear in BC the motto for most profs is "Publish or Perish", and the amount you've published has a fairly large impact on your position, the opportunities which come your way, etc. Particularly for research scientists, doesn't it also help lend credibility to a project, which in turn helps with getting the grants necessary to continue a given project? These would be vast stakes.

Secondly, when someone has poured their time and effort (and heart and soul) into a given line of research, developing a theory, there are other stakes present. If one believes in one's theory, particularly if it is heterodox within the field, one does frequently have to fight to not be dismissed, and to have one's evidence looked at seriously. In a case like this, when one is fairly convinced that one's theory is the best in a give area, the stakes are humanity's sum total of knowledge, and our ability to progress to further truth. When a good theory is buried or ignored, it has a deletrious effect. When a good theory comes to light, the benefits can ripple outwards to all related sciences.

Thus it seems both from the practical and personal standpoint, and from the altruistic 'neutral' standpoint, the stakes are high.

[Jose]

What you say is 100% correct. I said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, stealing it from my previous department chair.

For tenure, promotion, and continous grant support, the number and quality of papers truly matters. It's here that slow progress results in perishing--that is, losing your grant so you can't afford to continue the research.

Still, we aren't usually talking about fame and fortune, or becoming president, or even getting an outrageous salary. It's really precedence of ideas that counts. For "mere" precedence of ideas, which many Americans wouldn't give a hoot about, we surely fight fiercely.

[nikolayevich]

It is interesting how we're all motivated. Certainly the large majority of scientists don't drive Porsches and I've only known of perhaps one locally who had any kind of fame beyond university circles. I think most know that this the reality from the outset of their career. Research grants are very important, and for good reason scientists strive to better their knowledge and understanding of their field.

I think from this perspective it can be said that to take on the challenge of life as a scientist is quite a task. I also believe that in today's world, where we have universities sponsored by pharmaceutical companies looking for better impotence drugs*, those in earnest search for cures for cancers (as one example) must fight to give reason to their cause, whether for cancer, whether for origins science, etc.

There is certainly frustration among scientists looking for truth in their field, looking for answers to questions their students pose, and so forth. From this perspective, the more I ponder our debate here, the more one can see that the problem of motivation - publishing to avoid perishing - is very much with institutionalized scientific endeavor. This is not to say that every scientist individually is not responsible for their actions, and I submit that each, despite sponsorship or grant must do all possible to remain truthful. But when one has a wife, and children to put through college (and they don't always want to go to yours!) as so many do, it isn't just a question of one's chair or job, it's a problem of livelihood. Now, every scientist faces this, whether creationist or evolutionist and therefore, in many ways it's a balanced problem. Certainly there are differences though.

Evolutionism is a scientific journey to explain a number of things, past and present. Because admittedly there is so much unknown about evolution, as in mechanisms of change beyond the species level and so much more, it is an exciting area of study to many scientists and much is published on the subject. Virtually every science program I see on TV will have something which relates to evolution nowadays. Discovery channel is one example.

Creationism is now a challenge to evolutionism as the tables have been turned as it were. There are far fewer creationist scientists and while there are some non-profit creationist organizations which have steadily grown, jobs to fund a scientist's study of design theory or such are few and far between. Creation scientists in universities also face the "publish or perish" paradigm, however, most creationists will only ever have opportunity to publish work unrelated to design theory, although they would not hide evidence in its support. This said, the creationist, if Christian, also desires for others to learn of their world view so this can be considered as a motivation. (I think the same may be true for an evolutionist but am trying to concede what is possible for a balanced debate).

So it can be said that both evolutionists and creationists have motives beyond simply the good nature of their character.

So what is the next step to gain a broader understanding of each other's position in "Why we believe Creation or Evolution?"

Here's an article describing a fight to stem one such sponsorship problem.

*useful but it's a priorities thing

[ST88]

The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Just because some Christians and Jews have found common ground doesn't take away from the fact that the original intention of evolutionary theory was to explain the origin of life in a completely naturalistic way.

This would be an acceptable argument if there was some kind of church of evolutionary theory. The "naturalism" you speak of is only diametrically opposed to the idea of God because you think it is. This non-evolution God is not the only view of Christianity that is out there, it is only for Creationists.

And so we still disagree..

According to Websters, it defines naturalism as "The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will."

I don't think the idea that naturalism is diametrically opposed to the idea of God is true just because I think it is. Rather, it is a fact that in the framework of naturalism the existence of a God is denied, while in the framework of creation, the existence of God is affirmed. Logically only one can be true because both views contradict one another. Yes, some Christians believe that God used evolution to create life, however, that's not naturalism anymore (it goes specifically against the definition of naturalism). In naturalism God cannot exist and in Christianity God must exist. If that's not diametrically opposed than what is?

Let's not get excited here. Evolution does not require this definition of naturalism. The dictionary definition, the statements of the founders of the movement, and any other evidence you can come up with to explain naturalism does not matter. "The naturalism you speak of" represents your view about the framework behind evolution. I don't think scientists were asking themselves "How can I disprove God today?" and came up with evolution. The "framework" was the interpretation of the available evidence, regardless of God. Darwin was a Christian until he started looking at the evidence. Lamarck believed in the unchanging nature of species until he started studying invertebrates. But whether it was inspired by naturalism or Naturalism or by interpretation of available evidence, the fact remains that there is plenty of religious thought that does not take the first parts of Genesis literally.

"We grant the principle of evolution, but we regard it as only the method of divine intelligence" -- Systematic Theology (1907), A.H. Strong, president of Rochester Theological Seminary (Baptist, I think).

And those wacky liberal Catholics:

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer ... Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes to heaven." -- Pope John Paul II

As for the rest of this answer, I will start a new thread - Sourcing the Bible for specific discussion of authorship, dates, and context. (For a general authorship discussion, please see Who dun it?)

[harmonium]

Do you not understand what that research was about? It is specifically related to Michael's research into irreducible complexity. Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists investigating this theory which is completely original.

Yes, however the site which I was referred to certain molecules possibly being able to be used as structural elements inside of a micro-organism.
However, at no time during the blurb did it give any indication of what counts as a negative response to the hypothesis, namely what would show the hypothesis to be false.

Any hypothesis that is unable to be falsified by a certain experimental outcome (One example would be finding dinosaurs in the pre-cambrian rock strata for Evolutionary theory) is not a scientific hypothesis since there is no means in principle, were the hypothesis false, to disprove it.

Without such a negative result condition, a sum total of squat gets discovered meaning such "research" is equivalent to a grown-up playing with a sophisticated "My first chemistry set".

So, am I wrong or is there some means to demonstrate, in principle, the falsehood of creationism should it be false?

If there is, a google search doesn't seem to find it....

Well, it's pretty clear from the article I posted that it meets the criteria for the scientific method and that the hypothesis is a valid one. A hypothesis is a working assumption and in this case they are assuming that oligoadenosine tracts can be used as phasing elements inside of the DNA molecule. Either the tracts are being used for this purpose inside the DNA, or they are not - and the experiments they are conducting around that hypothesis are designed to discover is this is so or not. So, it's pretty obvious what it would take for the hypothesis to be considered false.

This hypothesis, should it prove to be experientially verified, is just one piece of the puzzle for theory of irreducible complexity. The theory directly brings into question Darwinian evolution and points to a designer. If you want further evidence I suggest you do some research into this theory because you can't fully understand the experiment I pointed you to without the context of irreducible complexity.

Now, regarding your test of falsifiability I would point you no further than the critics of the irreducible complexity theory. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim that a theory and/or hypothesis is unfalsifiable and at the same time assert that the theory is false. The fact that critics of the theory advance scientific arguments against it shows that it indeed falsifiable.

In addition, for a simple example of how intelligent design/creation is falsifiable I point you to a quote from William Dempski:

"Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely."

On the other hand, how would you prove that Darwinian evolution is falsifiable? Your example of finding dinosaurs in the pre-cambrian rock strata doesn't appear to cut it because you need to be able to prove that no conceivable evolutionary pathway could have lead to that condition. It doesn't falsify evolution because it could just mean that the current understanding of how evolution occurred is wrong, not evolution itself.

[Jose]

Well, it's pretty clear from the article I posted that it meets the criteria for the scientific method and that the hypothesis is a valid one. A hypothesis is a working assumption and in this case they are assuming that oligoadenosine tracts can be used as phasing elements inside of the DNA molecule. Either the tracts are being used for this purpose inside the DNA, or they are not - and the experiments they are conducting around that hypothesis are designed to discover is this is so or not. So, it's pretty obvious what it would take for the hypothesis to be considered false.

This hypothesis, should it prove to be experientially verified, is just one piece of the puzzle for theory of irreducible complexity. The theory directly brings into question Darwinian evolution and points to a designer.

OK, so oligo-A tracts can be used as phasing elements. This has been known for years. They tend to bend the DNA helix toward the minor groove. What's so hard about that? Here's a DNA sequence with an A or two in it. A mutation occurs to add another A. Another occurs to add another A. Now we have an oligo-A tract. If the bend introduced by this tract happens to do some good--such as move an upstream transcriptional regulator closer to the polymerase-binding site, then this randomly-developed oligo-A tract provides a useful function, and may be retained.

An oligo-A tract that bends DNA the wrong way would be selected against.

So, oligo-A tracts are, indeed, being used for a purpose. They bend DNA. They show up in places where bends happen to help. They don't have to be there, of course, because DNA is flexible and bends by itself. But some "encouraged bending" can make the random flexibility work better. But, we need no designer to come up with this. Random mutation, followed by selection, works just fine.

your quote from Dembski:

"Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely."

Well now. There are many types of pre-flagellae in bacterial systems. Others have commented on them. Many of the parts that are used in flagellae are found in use elsewhere. The short answer is that it has been shown that bacterial flagellae could have been formed by an evolutionary process. Therefore, we seem to have met Dembski's definition of finishing off intelligent design quite nicely.

Despite the fact that this response to Dembski has been presented before, and despite the evidence, it is certain that the "bacterial flagellum agrument" will be raised over and over for years to come. That's how it is.