Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Unprovable ideas in science and God
Message-ID: <121@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 15:13:39 EST
Article-I.D.: uscvax.121
Posted: Thu Oct 24 15:13:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 07:31:08 EST
References: <2294@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 43
Keywords: Black holes, Creationism, Evolution

In article <2294@ukma.UUCP> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes:
>If you are trying to say that just because we cannot prove or disprove
>something, does not mean it is not science, I'll go along with you.

One of the criteria which is used in deciding whether or not a subject
(theory) is science (scientific) is whether or not it is falsifiable
in principle. A theory in physics about how a ball rolls is subject to
experimental verification. In mathematics every statement is subject to
scrutiny. Nothing is taken for granted (at least not for long). Every
hypothesis in mathematics is falsifiable in principle (though some
hypotheses turn out to be provably undecidable until such a proof of
undecidability is rendered an hypothesis is just an unproven statement).

If an astrologer makes a bad prediction it is not
because astrology is bogus but because he misread the signs, or did not
have enough information about a birthdate, or some such nonsense. To those
who believe in astrology, nothing can falsify it. The same can be said for
religion. If one could prove that God does not exist a true (Christian)
believer would probably take such a proof as a deception perpetrated by
Satan. Thus religion is not falsifiable and whence not a science. The same
can be said for creationism. Creationism starts with the premise that
everything was created by God a few thousand years ago. Every observation
that discounts this belief is rationalized away by the creationist as either
the result of some biblical event (such as the great flood) or as just the
way  God created it. Creationism is not falsifiable and hence is not a
science.

>However.  I see nothing in nature or science that points to a God existing.

Most people that look for evidence for God in nature take the overwhelming
beauty and complexity of nature to be a proof. In reality this is not a
proof but an emotional reaction.

>Unlike other ideas that may be ``unprovable'', where we see effects pointing
>towards a certain fact, what points to a God existing?  Creationism?  From
>what I know of Creationism, it denies these things we scientists have come
>to think of as `facts'.  (Not to say scientists haven't been wrong before.)
>It denies that evolution takes place, and evolution is not an unprovable
>idea.. it exists, and has been seen by observation.  I will grant that we
>can't prove that humans evolved from some life form a couple million years
>ago,  but have you seen creationism proved by observation any time recently?
>
>						Sean.