Can creationism make verifiable predictions? Can creationism be considered in the same realm as science? [Spirituality & Religion]

@JoeyFoxx


Yup. And that transitional form was predicted using evolution as a foundation.
I've yet to see a creation based prediction achieve the same result.


lol then you're privileged.
Just ask if creationism/ intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as science in school.

@JoeyFoxx folks like Ray Comfort call it "creation science" or "intelligent design." Pseudoscience is what it is.

@Pikachu One cannot predict something that has already occurred. One can infer something based on other observations. While it may be semantics, the evolution theory inferred the existence of the Tiktaalik. The discovery certainly helped to strengthen the theory.

What would be impressive would be if evolution followed a predictable pattern and if there was the ability to predict something that hasn't happened yet.

anyhoo... as for the "intelligent design", there are scientists that support it. At best, it could be supported with some circumstantial evidence of things that appear to be beyond what we know about our current physical existence. It's unfortunate for anyone to suggest that it's hard science.

@JoeyFoxx



I disagree.

If something has not yet been observed then that observation CAN be predicted even if the subject of that prediction has occurred in the past.

A prediction is something which you can tell will occur given a certain set of variables.
That thing does not have to occur after the prediction in order for the prediction to be correct.
In order for it to be a prediction, it need only me made without prior knowledge of that which is predicted.

@Pikachu It's an inference, not a prediction. A prediction is beyond observations, an inference is within observations.

@JoeyFoxx

Well maybe you can help me out then.

What is an example of a scientific prediction which can not be considered an inference?

@Pikachu Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science

It's an important semantic difference.

When it comes to evolution, a prediction would literally be something along the lines of "humans will eventually not have a 5th toe"

@JoeyFoxx It’s a pretty accepted way to formulate these things tbh. The actual prediction is about what we can observe today, if a particular event happened in the past.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_03

@JoeyFoxx


Sorry, even with that i'm not seeing how it's an important distinction.
Seems more like a distinction without a difference.

They are at least as different as a cyclone is different from a typhoon 🙂

@NorthernBear

In order for it to be a distinction with a difference, there must be some practical distinction here.

What's an example of a scientific prediction which could not be considered an inference?

Yeah, I was being ironic and intentionally chose a pair of synonyms to compare it to. 🙂

@NorthernBear

lol i get ya.
I just didn't want to talk about the differences between typhoons and tornadoes lol