A Fundamental Difference between Creationism and Science

[ENIGMA]

What fact, if it were shown to be the case, would kill the current Creationist (YEC, but OEC's are welcome to answer) model?

As a quick example, finding a T. Rex fossil in a Pre-cambrian strata would likely either kill or significantly alter the evolutionary model, since it requires a massive reformulation of evolutionary pathways and assumed time constraints. We have found nothing of the sort, so evolutionary theory does not conflict with the evidence where it potentially could have, and is thus supported.

I contend that there is no such thing in Creationism as such a fact, or at least one that could potentially be found by humanity, however I could be wrong and if so would like to hear any possible piece of evidence that, if found, would kill or significantly alter Creationism.

If there is none, then it is non-falsifiable and thus is not a science.

[Yahweh]

I think you ask a very good question, and I'll reiterate: What, if anything, would you say would cause you to abandon your beliefs?


There are many more reasons why Creationism is not a science. From The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Creationism:

The judge ruled firmly that Creation Science is not science, it is religion, and as such has no place in public classrooms. The judge ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.

In the judge's opinion, Creation Science fails on all counts, and that apparently was an end to matters. (The ruling and the context are given in Ruse 1988.)

...

Conclusion

Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair.

[The Hungry Atheist]

Creationism, by definition, must adhere to the Biblical account of the creation of the world, otherwise it's not creationism any more. Creationists might accept facts that kill the model, seeing reason and changing their ideas, though not many do, because there are more than enough facts around already which do exactly that.

One of science's strengths over religion is that it can adapt to fit any new information, while still being science. If quantum theory was overturned tomorrow and replaced by something new, the people studying it would still be physicists, just as scientists would still be scientists even if the evolutionary model was dramatically thrown into doubt. But Creationism cannot change from its original tenets. For some it is unfalsifiable, but as far as I'm concerned it's already been falsified, many times over.

[otseng]

What fact, if it were shown to be the case, would kill the current Creationist (YEC, but OEC's are welcome to answer) model?

I think this is a good question. Though I'm not sure if this really belongs in the debate category.

If Creation Science is to be scientific, then it must be falsifiable. Though I don't really consider it to be a "science", there are many Christians that do.

And also, there are many models of Creationism. So, it also depends on the model.

For me, one strong blow to my beliefs in Creationism is if we find that life has evolved on another planet.

[logic]

Before i begin i would like to state that i do not think of Creationism, at least in the way its been discussed so far, as a legitimate science. However, could it not be that "God" at one point or another originally created everything and allowed it to evolve naturally to the point which we are today? In other words, If god created the first bit of matter in what we know to be our world today (including everything which we know nothing about [e.g. undiscovered galaxies, planets, etc.]), and allowed it to follow a "natural" course of events including the "big bang" theory (or whatever theory is most widely accepted today) and evolution as we know it, etc., couldn't the two theorys (creationism and evolution) be taught as one? After all, Darwin was a devout christian when he developed his theory of evolution. While his views on the development of life was altered after his theory was unveiled, he never abandoned the idea that creationism and evolution could exist together and he remained a devout christian until his death.

Regardless of how strong a persons convictions are towards believing or not believing in a god, we are all very much unsure (agnotstic) of the truth (not even the pope truely knows if there is a god!). Should we not at least offer various theorys of how we came to be even if we happen to disagree? After all, who are we to say that god does not exist at all, or surely exists if no one really knows?

Having said that i do not think that religion should be taught in schools. I merely think that any plausible explanation towards a topic such as this, which we don't truely know the answer, should be addressed.

[The Hungry Atheist]

Plausible explanations should indeed be considered, and it is certainly possible that God created everything and allowed it all to evolve naturally, just as it is technically possible that the almighty Invisible Pink Unicorns created the entire Universe ten minutes ago, provided us with false memories of the past, made the place look really old, and so on. But although these might be possible, they're not actually directly indicated by any observations. We don't know anything for sure, but we can be relatively sure of certain things, and must remain very unsure of others.

[Dk-man]

A fact that would discredit creationism:

Observation of living transitional forms forming gradually.

[ENIGMA]

A fact that would discredit creationism:

Observation of living transitional forms forming gradually.

Could you please clarify and give an hypothetical example of that fact being the case?

You see, I am a bit wary when such a general fact is stated as a possible means that creationism could be discredited since it could very well be argued in perpetuity on whether or not such an event has taken place regardless of any candidates for such an event.

i.e.:

"The harmless bacteria developed into a virulent strain without human intervention? That's not really a transition! it's just...."

...which ultimately leaves us back at square one, with no real means for the evidence to reject creationism should creationism be false (and conversely for the evidence to uphold creationism should it be true).

[Dk-man]

Could you please clarify and give an hypothetical example of that fact being the case?

Okay well I thought to make it simple i'd look up the definition of transitional, then give you an example:

Transitional
(a.) Of or pertaining to transition; involving or denoting transition; as, transitional changes; transitional stage.

Now for an example of a transitional form: A man and a chimp share a common ancestor, we are all considered to be part of the hominidae. Anthropologists find fossils of these transitionals between man and his common ancestor in the rock strata in certain parts of the globe.

Now if a scientist could manage to show a living transitional such as a half bird and half mammal then creationists would not need to state the obvious, i.e that roses produce roses. If a scientist could show that over X amount of generations a apple could produce a non-apple, or a transitional apple leading into another transitional form, then creationists would admit that kinds do not produce after themselves.

I often get asked by evolutionists "If evolution were true, would we expect to see transitional forms living?"

Each evolutionist I talk with claims "No". This is my whole point, all we see is what we observe in our universe and planet. For example our observations show us that oranges do indeed produce a variety of oranges. Someone might wish to attempt to explain the unobserved, but really we have not seen this, indirect observation would still show us that oranges produce oranges through out the past generations.

I still conclude that A living transitional form would show creationism to be flawed.