Yeah, the macro evolutionary claims are extrapolations. Take micro evolutionary claims as the one that are testable. The point is that the claims it makes are testable.
You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."
This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.
It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.
Yes it does...
One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).
Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.
They are incompatible, sure.Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.
But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.
The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on...
In this vein they are exactly alike.
Bookmarks