Henry J
Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
| Quote | | A) The God theory can be the basis of empirical science and can provide a framework for research (it has done so in the past). |
No. Those results in the past were not a result of "God theory". They were a result of careful observation and analysis of the data.
| Quote | | B) The currently held theory cannot be empirically falsified because its test for falsification is flawed and can be circumvented by endless appeals to future discovery. |
Consider finding that a known species fits unabmiguously in one place in the nested hierarchy based on its anatomical structures, but unambiguously somewhere else entirely based on its DNA, or one that's in two distinct places in the hierarchy based on different parts of its anatomy, or different sections of its DNA). If such were found it would put a definite crimp on confidence in the current theory. (And of course, there's always that rascally precambrian rabbit to look for.)
Perhaps the problem is that you're thinking in terms of trying to falsify the whole thing at once, but only specific hypotheses are apt to be falsified by any one discovery or experiment. The way to falsify evolution is to find enough contrary examples to cause the basic premises to be determined to be unreliable. Given the huge amount of data already known to be consistent with the theory, that would take a huge amount of additional data inconsistent with what's been collected over the last century and a half. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable in principle; that makes it extremely unlikely that it will be - which is what would be expected if it's not wrong in its basic points.
| Quote | | C) Modern science has not demonstrated that God is not required. |
So what? That isn't the goal of science; the goal of science is to understand how things work.
Henry
|
