What does creationism predict?

[Mr Skeptic]

Many people accuse creationism of having no predictions, but I think it does make a few. Dismissing it as making no predictions seems like a disingenuous approach to me. However, if they want to say god made additional changes than the ones mentioned, then all bets are off. Also, I'd like to limit this discussion to the predictions made rather than the accuracy of the predictions, so that creationists can work together with everyone else to tell what their theory predicts, then we can discuss the predictions in a separate thread.

 

Predictions of creationism:

* The DNA of all species should "look" designed. This is ambiguous, but at the very least it could mean that it is generally different than would be expected from natural processes like evolution, including mutations, transposons, and retrovirus DNA.

* Flood story: The DNA of all non-aquatic animal species is limited by the flood story. This means a maximum of two alleles for species on the Ark. So, 4 alleles for unclean animals, and 14 alleles for clean animals. For humans, there could be 10 alleles (more if Noah's wife was promiscuous), although only 4 alleles if everyone is Adam and Eve's descendants. Likewise, mitochondrial DNA is limited to about one per female animal, so one for unclean animals and up to 6 per clean animal. Throw in the DNA that might be generated in 6,000-7,000 years of evolution, and these are the maximum variants of alleles and mtDNA.

* Flood story geology: A large amount of sedimentary rock should look like it was deposited all at once, and deposited onto already formed mountains rather than the mountains rising afterward. Also, any lava in the layers should look like it was deposited underwater. Any layers formed would have to by by waves and would not include layers of ash from volcanos or fires, nor layers from meteorites. Would also result in a floodlike arrangement of fossils, perhaps most notably of small fossils.

 

Any creationists passing by, feel free to add whatever predictions may be missing, or correct any that may be wrong (but explain why).

[ecoli]

no differences between dating of fossils. (same fossils at every point in time)

[SH3RL0CK]

I think it is important to distinguish amongst the various types of creationists.

 

1) Those who beleive the earth is 6,000 years old.

2) Those who beleive the earth is about 5 billion years old.

 

Obviously these will produce different prediction, especially with regards to fossil records.

 

Some creationists have no problem with evolution, b.t.w. To them it the creation story answers "Why" and Evolution answers "How" things are as they are.

 

Also, I'd like to add that we should be careful not to confuse the stories.

 

the story of Noah's ark is different than creation,

the creation of the universe (Big Bang) can be considered different than the creation of life (Evolution)

[Mokele]

I don't think anyone claims that creationism as a whole doesn't make predictions (it clearly does), but rather than ID (a specific facet of creationism) doesn't. The problem is that ID has stripped off all the more easily falsified predictions such as the flood myth, the young Earth, etc., and even accepted "microevolution", leaving very little else except the claim about "design".

 

It's also important to note the difference between a prediction and a *testable* prediction. If I make up a Theory of Everything, but the only way it can be evaluated is when the universe ends, that's not scientific, because even though there is a prediction, that prediction cannot be tested. Ditto for 'design' - it's a prediction, but not a testable one, because 'design' is an amorphous, undefined property that cannot be evaluated on its own.

 

 

 

So, in short:

1) there's more than one type of creationism and

2) prediction isn't the same as *testable* prediction.

 

Mokele

[Mr Skeptic]

While it is true that old earth creationists don't have much in the way of testable predictions, it is (I think) the young earth creationists who tend to like to attack evolution. Likewise, many of the intelligent design proponents would lose much of their interest in intelligent design if someone were to disprove young earth creationism.

 

In any case, predictions from old earth creationism, young earth creationism, and intelligent design are all welcome, so long as it is made clear which theory is making which prediction (if it is not implicitly clear).

[Sisyphus]

This isn't a specific prediction, but assuming that the YEC's God is not trying to fool people into thinking the world is much older than it is, then wouldn't it predict a lack of evidence of this? For example, it would predict that we couldn't see anything farther than 6000 light years away, and/or it would predict a lack of evidence for a constant speed of light.

[SH3RL0CK]

While it is true that old earth creationists don't have much in the way of testable predictions,

 

Actually, I don't beleive this statement to be true. It seems to me that OEC theories would certainly predict the current fossil record and all the geological and cosmological evidence that exists today.

 

I guess maybe its really just a matter of adjusting ones beliefs in accordance with the facts (i.e. becoming a OEC believer instead of a YEC believer).

[Mokele]

While it is true that old earth creationists don't have much in the way of testable predictions, it is (I think) the young earth creationists who tend to like to attack evolution. Likewise, many of the intelligent design proponents would lose much of their interest in intelligent design if someone were to disprove young earth creationism.

 

I strongly disagree. Remember, ID was specifically created to circumvent legal rulings about religion in the classroom. All of them like to pretend to challenge evolution, but YEC is most obvious due to it's blatant stupidity.

 

but assuming that the YEC's God is not trying to fool people into thinking the world is much older than it is

 

And there's the rub - any results which do not confirm YEC (or any other version) can be dismissed as "God moves in mysterious ways" or "God is testing our faith".

 

Just as testability is important, so is falsifiability. If there is no circumstance under which a hypothesis can be show to be false, it's not scientific in any way shape or form. The arguments above show that there is no falsification possible.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

Also, didn't they "predict" that the bacterial flagellum was irriducibly complex, only to be proven wrong when the eukaryotic cilium was found?

 

It's like they keep arguing that they're the best and most prepared soccer players, and they demand a place out on the field. So, you put them on the field, and place them just a few short feet in front of the net, and they miss it every single time the ball is kicked. They kick and they kick, and they substitute players, but the ball never once makes it into the net. Yet despite the consistent failures they continue to claim that they are the best and most prepared soccer players and deserve to be out there on the field beside the pros. At some point, you just have to ask them to leave the field so the game can continue.

[Mr Skeptic]

This isn't a specific prediction, but assuming that the YEC's God is not trying to fool people into thinking the world is much older than it is, then wouldn't it predict a lack of evidence of this? For example, it would predict that we couldn't see anything farther than 6000 light years away, and/or it would predict a lack of evidence for a constant speed of light.

 

I think that general idea is right. However, the bible suggests that the stars are a demonstration of god's qualities, so of course he would like us to see them. However, one might ask whether god would make star configurations that look like two galaxies collided over billions of years. The only reason for that seems to be to make the universe look old, which I think runs counter to what the bible says about what the stars are for.

 

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

This seems to suggest that observable evidence in the world should clearly point to god. This goes completely counter to those who say god tires to hide his existence.

 

---

 

Isaiah 40:26 (New International Version)

26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:

Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one,

and calls them each by name.

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

not one of them is missing.

 

This seems to suggest that every star that was in the sky, should still be there, right?

[SH3RL0CK]

This seems to suggest that every star that was in the sky, should still be there, right?

 

I agree with most of your post, however "missing" can have different meanings particularly since this passage has been translated into english. Missing does not necessarily mean that no star will ever "die". I once had an old truck which eventually "died" and I got rid of it. But that does not make it "missing." But enough nit-picking from me on this...