EVOLUTION FOES SHALL NEVER SUCCEED

[John Grehan]

Thomas Schlemmermeyer wrote:

>Another question that enters is the meaning of prediction.
>The conventional, most conservative view which would be most
>vulnerable to creationist attacks is that a theory must make a genuinely new
>prediction which is then tested by a genuinely new experiment which
>happens to be realized only after the prediction already was made.

In my field of evolution, this criterion may have been met by the
novel geological predictions in panbiogeography. In 1958 Croizat predicted
a composite geological structure and origin for the Americas. This appears
to represent
a genuinely new prediction. The "testing" of this prediction is represented by
the geological analyses of geological homologies for the Americas demonstrating
the unrelatedness of western and eastern systems. The question for
creationism is
whether that program (whether or not one may consider it science) has predicted
any novel facts at all (i.e. facts about the biology or geology of the
world that
is not already known) and if so, whether any of these predicted facts have
been corroborated. At this time I am not aware of either acomplishement.

John Grehan