What predictions does Creationism make? (a fundamental requirement in science class)

There are many ATS members who really want to push Creationist concepts in science class (among other wishes). So in order to really determine what is scientific and what is not scientific, we need to know what makes science, science.

Firstly, there's the scientific method. I realize a lot of you who do not accept a number of scientific theories or hypotheses and so forth claim that many ideas that we have in science, do not adhere to the scientific method, but that's not the issue I want to deal with here. You claim that Creationism deserves a spotlight of consideration alongside scientific teachings, so in order to verify that Creationism truly deserves this spotlight, it must also be scientific. Here's the scientific method in the basic form:



To apply Creationism to this, Creationists need to ask ask 'How did life begin on Earth?'. You would then gather evidence from nature, and then form a hypothesis on the information you've gathered.

The tricky part is this; knowing what makes a scientific hypothesis, a scientific hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, and then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration.

Lastly, Scientific hypothesis are subject to peer review. Peer review is continuous, relentless, and unforgiving. If a hypothesis is shown to be false, it is then thrown away.

So I ask, what predictions does Creationism make, how do we test those predictions? But, most importantly, is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

a reply to: Ghost147

is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

Like any dogmatic belief system, creationists will still hold on to the idea regardless of the overwhelming evidence that evolutionary biologist have discovered and will continue to discover that disproves the very notion of an intelligent designer. It's just a religion trying to use science as a platform to espouse their bull# to a larger audience.

a reply to: Ghost147

Hypothesis. Life can only come into being through design, not random chance. This can be falsified by doing tests that attempt to start life through random chance under conditions that would have been possible.

The test and results can certainly be peer reviewed to find flaws with the test and improve the test.

If at any time life is jumpstarted through mere random chance, then the hypothesis is invalid.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Ghost147

is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

Like any dogmatic belief system, creationists will still hold on to the idea regardless of the overwhelming evidence that evolutionary biologist have discovered and will continue to discover that disproves the very notion of an intelligent designer. It's just a religion trying to use science as a platform to espouse their bull# to a larger audience.

Wow what a load.
Your dogmatic belief system sounds pretty biased itself. How does that work out in science class?

If evolutionary biologists have already discovered something that disproves an intelligent designer, then why would they need to continue to discover that even more? Once you discover something, does discovering it again later make it more true? Discovering water once, should be enough to know it exists.
What science class were you in anyways?

I read around here science has to be repeatable observable and testable.

Care to back up the OP with a little evidence

Thankyou

and lets tell the truth about peer review, its all backscratchin BS, science is corrupted to the bone, every field of it, has always been
Only an ignorant child minded person would think otherwise

Believing in peer reviews as valid is as stupid as believing creationism is valid

a reply to: Raggedyman

and lets tell the truth about peer review, its all backscratchin BS, science is corrupted to the bone, every field of it, has always been

Every single field of science is bull#&$% and always had been, eh?

How the hell do you explain the immeasurable amount of technological advances in just about every facet of our lives then??

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

and lets tell the truth about peer review, its all backscratchin BS, science is corrupted to the bone, every field of it, has always been

Every single field of science is bull#&$% and always had been, eh?

How the hell do you explain the immeasurable amount of technological advances in just about every facet of our lives then??

Aliens. (sorry couldn't resist

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ghost147

Hypothesis. Life can only come into being through design, not random chance. This can be falsified by doing tests that attempt to start life through random chance under conditions that would have been possible.

The test and results can certainly be peer reviewed to find flaws with the test and improve the test.

If at any time life is jumpstarted through mere random chance, then the hypothesis is invalid.

Hypothesis 2.

Neither Natural Selection nor Mutations of cellular organisms can account for variations of genetic complexity that cross the boundaries of Class/Phylum.

This can be falsified by doing tests that attempt to create various stresses on single cell organisms in an attempt to cause mutations where the cellular organism becomes a multi-cellular organism considered of a new class/phylum from the parent organism.

All experiments that attempt to cause such mutations can be peer reviewed and improved.

If at anytime a cellular organism becomes multi-cellular, thus establishing a new class/phylum then the hypothesis is flawed.

Hypothesis 3

Neither Natural Selection nor Mutations of complex life can produce offspring of a different class/phylum.

This can be falsified by long term testing of simple organism that have short lifecycles such as Mayflies, which have a lifecycle ranging from 1-24 hours.

All observations of natural selection or attempts to cause such mutations can be peer reviewed and improved.

Although these tests need to be done in controlled environments over many years the tests can be done and peer reviewed.

If at anytime the Mayfies evolve into an organism of a new class/phylum the hypothesis is flawed.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't think OP thought this out very well.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't think OP thought this out very well.

Agreed,

Evolutionist use there imagination as much as creationist, they just refuse to admit it. They assume small changes account for larger changes over 1000s of years, even though It's impossible to know at this point. But we can test for it in organisms with short lifecycles.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Hypothesis. Life can only come into being through design, not random chance. This can be falsified by doing tests that attempt to start life through random chance under conditions that would have been possible.

The test and results can certainly be peer reviewed to find flaws with the test and improve the test.

If at any time life is jumpstarted through mere random chance, then the hypothesis is invalid.

Correct, it's falsifiable. Now, how do we test that life comes through design?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Hypothesis 2.

That's not a hypothesis, that's just you claiming it can't. We have already disproved this concept anyways. Not only that, but I've already given you examples, personally, in various other threads, but you continue to ignore the responses and abandon the topics.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Hypothesis 3

Again, this isn't a hypothesis, it's just you claiming it can't. Also, I am unaware of anything that claims "Natural Selection and/or Mutations of complex life can produce offspring of a different class/phylum."

originally posted by: Isurrender73
They assume small changes account for larger changes over 1000s of years, even though It's impossible to know at this point.

Those aren't assumptions, they are verified through fossilized remains, as well as living organisms that possess (but often have no use for) specific bone structure/organs/Shared DNA.

originally posted by: Ghost147

Correct, it's falsifiable. Now, how do we test that life comes through design?

That's not the hypothesis I gave. What you did is called changing the goal posts.

I have seen lots of these threads of late. There seems to be an assumption that without the means there is no end. We don't have all the answers, but we do have all the formulas? The point of creationism is to prove science is flawed, but we want to use the same old litmus test. I like this part, "The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome." Maybe science has changed since I was in school, but a hypothesis use to be followed with an assumed outcome, you use to provide an implied answer to your question. Then, you would test it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ghost147


If at any time life is jumpstarted through mere random chance, then the hypothesis is invalid.

All you'd be testing is the experimenter's ability to create life through random chance. It would say nothing about Intelligent Design.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

and lets tell the truth about peer review, its all backscratchin BS, science is corrupted to the bone, every field of it, has always been

Every single field of science is bull#&$% and always had been, eh?

How the hell do you explain the immeasurable amount of technological advances in just about every facet of our lives then??

Seriously do you deserve a reply


Go read my quote again and hang your head in shame boy

The lowest common denominator is twisting simple English
MrT has something to say to you

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


Not saying technological advancement is bs. Just peer review. Peer review is just a process... and just like any process, has only as much honesty, integrity, and relevance as the peers doing the reviewing.

And just because a study gets repeatable results when performed by the most honest peers doing the reviewing, it doesn't in any way mean the interpretation of the results isn't still flawed. That's where the next round of testing begins.

a reply to: onthedownlow

The point of creationism is NOT to prove science is flawed. Get real now.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would expect to have some supporting evidence for both hypotheses under test. The observation "life exists", since it applies to both hypotheses, is not enough. Do we have evidence for life being possible to be manufactured by directed manipulation? About as much as for life being manufactured by Miller-Urey -processes.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Go read my quote again and hang your head in shame boy

You said every single field of science is corrupt and peer review is bogus. And that it always has been. I read it. I stated the implication of what you said, and then followed it with a question.

How about you address my question?