Talk:Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 See also 2 The usual Creationist nonsense 3 "Not Testable" - Moved from article 4 "Creationist Not Falsifiable" 5 Clean-up

See also

I am planning to add a see also to this section at the end of every creationist claims page. (I am following wiki's format , adding see also after references and external links) Any help in adding these links or more importantly making this page convincing would be really great. --Amit 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I can finally read this...

Don't you think that's overkill? Or rather, shouldn't we use a Creationist Claim template again (we had one before, but stopped using it for reasons that have nothing to do with the principle) and put that "See also" in the template? That way, further additions would be easy. --tk [[User_talk:Thomas_Kettenring|(t)]] 09:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Doddy 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The usual Creationist nonsense

Graffiti moved from the article:

Evolution is not a scientific theory for the simple reason that it is not testable.

• Nobody was there to witness the birth of the universe, so all Origins theories are theories, the same evididences available on earth and in space are shared by both evolutionists and creationists. Facts do NOT speak for themselves, and ALL evidenciary data *must* be interpreted. Both evolutionists and creationists use scientific tools and processes to examine the and interpret the data. The outcome of the interpretations depend on the presuppositions of the observer of the data. All humans have a bias, scientists included, which makes them NOT impartial, simply because they are scientists. Their interpretations are tainted by their world view(bias).

• The concept of Evolution, or an intelligent evolutionary force directing specific mutations and acting as a designer capable of designing the whole universe by chance, despite the numerical impossibilities, can not be proved (ignoring for a moment the numerical improbabilities that make it impossible). Hence, claims that evolution created the universe are not testable, nor can the original First Event, which requires a Cause & Effect on some pre-existing substance (which came from where?), be Tested
• Evolution is not testable for one more reason - It's predictions do not produce any significantly new phenomena. All we see today are minor changes within a species (speciation), not molecules-to-man type changes. Dogs produce other dog kinds, cats other cat kinds, birds other bird kind... no-crossovers.

Your claims have been debunked for a long time. See the following pages:

• Evolution can't be falsified
• Were you there?
• Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation
• The odds of life forming are incredibly small
• Evolution hasn't been proved
• Range of variation is limited within kinds
• The descendants of an X (cat, dog...) will remain X

--tk (t) 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not Testable" - Moved from article

It should be noted that evolution is also not testable since by definition it moves to slowly to be measured and the fossils have not proven a lineage from common ancestors to species seen today. Also evolution cannot rely on the "evidence" from the past of the fossils since although it can be proven that every fossil had been born it cannot be proven that any animal that is now fossilized every reproduced unless the animal died and was fossilized in the birthing process. Lastly no mutation in nature or in the laboratory has proven to be beneficial in the long run and to further the evolution of the species. Therefore, it is also unscientific. Not to mention that no one could possibly prove the sudden appearance or eternal existence of the universe, either of which is needed by evolution to even have a universe. Again, therefore, it is unscientific. --Onelinemaster

This is all wrong.

• Your imagination is just insufficient for finding ways to test evolution. Scientists, on the other hand, have found ways to test it, tested it, and it passed the tests. See Evolution can't be falsified.
• Your argument about fossils is confused - why is it relevant whether a fossilized individual reproduced?
• See Most mutations are harmful.
• See Big Bang has never been observed. --Rollulus roulroul 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Creationist Not Falsifiable"

I question "not falsifiable"; I think the author means that that creationism makes no claims that are falsifiable (testable) by experiment. But to say that creationism is not falsifiable is absurd when it has been rigorously falsified! Its geology is wrong, its physics is wrong, its biology is wrong, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. (Even its theology is wrong, but that's not really relevant to a scientific debate.) All that makes creationism falsified, therefore it was falsifiable. 84.69.3.180 10:19, 8 April 2008 (BST)

The basic principle (some supernatural entity created the world) is not falsifiable in itself.

As soon as you get to the details (how old is the Earth?) falsifiability is there in principle and the falsification is there, as you say, but creationists think up loads of additional assumptions to save their worldview, which are unfalsifiable and thus make the worldview in that form unfalsifiable. The scientists which were creationists in Darwin's time did not do that because that step means leaving the realm of science. Right?

I guess we should clarify that. --tk 13:05, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Clean-up

If we are to have this page at the end of every claim, it is my opinion that it should be a very good page indeed. As it stands, it isn't.--Doddy 00:10, 11 April 2007 (BST)