ImmortalFlame is first in line, and, as predicted, his post is less an argument than a flimsy excuse. He also seems emotional, so I can only assume I've hit a nerve.
Wrong. While creationism was put forward as in opposition to evolution, that doesn't somehow magically mean that they are both equally testable or untestable.
Evolution was put forward in opposition to creationism; the latter preceded the former.
Wrong again. See my "intelligent falling" analogy above. While I could easily say "any instance of gravity is really an instance of genies pushing us down", my claim has no credibility because the genies cannot be tested for. The evidence cannot therefore be said to be evidence of my claim, since my claim relies inherently on something that is untestable, while the theory of gravity relies only on descriptions of physical forces which can be easily quantified. Again, not all claims are equal, therefore interpreting the available evidence to fit an untestable hypothesis doesn't lend credibility to the hypothesis - but it doesn't necessarily detract from it either. All of the evidence for evolution being considered, a theistic explanation of life is still possible - it's just unlikely that it's one that doesn't involve some form of evolution. You could argue that the evidence of evolution is evidence against a young earth interpretation of creationism, but that's because a young earth claim is actually testable - a claim of the existence and intervention of an all-powerful agency is not (at least, yet).
If I claim that intelligent design is the cause of gravity, and you demonstrate that
anything other than intelligent design is the cause of gravity, then you will have falsified my claim.
You may not have demonstrated that invisible genies exist, but you have demonstrated that my claim -- that intelligent design is the cause of gravity -- is false, and you did so by proving your logically converse claim. You've disproved
A by proving
Not A.
Now, if that's still not sinking in, here's a better analogy to make sense of things.
- You have a girlfriend.
- Your girlfriend claims she's pregnant.
- You don't believe she is pregnant.
- You go to the store and buy a pregnancy test that is 100% accurate.
Question: Will this pregnancy test test for the presence of pregnancy (her claim), or the absence of pregnancy (your claim)?
Answer: Both. You cannot test for the presence of pregnancy without also testing for the absence of pregnancy. The test will not only prove one, it will inherently disprove (falsify) the other.
Now, let's rephrase the Darwin vs. Design question to more closely fit the above analogy.
- Darwinists claim there is no design in biology.
- I.D. proponents claim there is design in biology.
- Scientist runs a test which tests for Darwinism (the absence of design in biology).
Question: Will the scientist's test test for the presence of design (I.D.'s claim), or the absence of design (Darwinists' claim)?
Answer: Both. You cannot test for the presence of design without also testing for the absence of design. The test, assuming it's successful, will not only strengthen one position. it will inherently weaken the other.
Any test which addresses the question of whether or not there is design in biology will inherently affect both sides of the Darwin vs. Design debate.
Note that this flawless reasoning works equally well on the origin of life.
Every single time an origin of life researcher attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis, he's simultaneously attempting to falsify intelligent design. Thus, Intelligent Design is one of the most tested ideas in science. That it's not yet been falsified doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable, it just means that the abiogenesis position is weak and almost certainly false. Remember: You can't falsify truth, not even with lies and shoddy court room rulings.
"Proof" does not exist in science, aside from as mathematical formulas used to describe specific and Universal phenomena.
The term proof in science doesn't refer to 100% mathematical certainty, but to statements which are (provisionally) true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here's a great "flimsy excuse": you don't understand logic or science.
I have confidence that the reasonable, intelligent members of this forum can see which of us best understands logic and science.