In a previous post you said it was a problem, unless I misunderstood you:
“If God mixed sub-archetypes (at least if God pictures organisms and archetypes as strands of DNA), he’d no longer be designing with archetypes.”–chucklesthegrumpy
If God can mix and match different subtypes, then why don’t we see a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features, or whale and fish features?
Wings is the name of a function, not an anatomical feature. The forelimbs of birds and bats are very different:
The bat does not have a bird’s forelimb.[quote=“chucklesthegrumpy, post:18, topic:36344”]
I can agree that there is something to falsifiability, and it hits close to a unifying method or criterion for the sciences, but it’s just not the whole story. I know falsifiability is often stated as bedrock in a lot of popular thinking and on anti-creationist sites like RationalWiki, but the idea that falsifiability is the “end-all be-all” of what makes something a science is not really in line with contemporary philosophy of science.
Popper would disagree. If all possible observations are consistent with your hypothesis, then you aren’t doing science.[quote=“chucklesthegrumpy, post:18, topic:36344”]
On the flip side, setting falsifiability as the criterion of science also lets a lot of pseudoscience into the sciences that we probably shouldn’t let in. Flood geology comes to mind as one of them.
If falsifiability is a criterion then it would exclude flood geology because flood geologists cite any and all possible observations as being caused by a recent global flood. If you think I am wrong, then ask someone who supports flood geology what type of features a geologic formation would need to have in order to falsify the claim of a recent global flood. I have yet to find a flood geologist who can answer that question.[quote=“chucklesthegrumpy, post:18, topic:36344”]
But whether the existence of life on other planets is a scientifically supported conclusion is beside the point. It seems it is still a proposition that is within the realm of the sciences. But it’s clearly unfalsifiable in any practical sense.
It isn’t beside the point. It is the whole point. No one is concluding that there is life on another planet. If there is no scientific conclusion, then it isn’t scientific. Considering the possibility that life exists on other planets is not science. Collecting observations is not science. Science is the application of the scientific method.