Not quite, but close. A theory is an explanatory argument. That's it. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. That's it. A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That's it. That's all.
The assumption, as you correctly state, is a bad one. Radio carbon dating, however, IS a theory of science. So far as we have been able to test it, it has not failed us. That is the key point: as far as we have been able to test it. That means it's only tested to within the last generation of living things. Within that range, the theory holds up. Attempting to extend that theory to times beyond our ability to test it is the error.
Correct, for the reasons I just mentioned.
Science has no theories about past unobserved events. There is simply no way to test to see if that event actually took place.
Correct. The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science. No one is saying it is.
Also correct. Since the Theory of Creation is not falsifiable, it remains a circular argument (the way all theories, including scientific ones, start). It also has extending arguments from the initial circular argument. That makes the Theory of Creation also a religion.
The same is true of the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of the Big Bang.
Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. There is no way to test it.
It IS a theory. It just isn't a scientific one.
A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That means the null hypothesis is available and testable, using a test that is specific and produces a specific result. As long as a theory can survive such tests, it is a theory of science.
I don't believe you are a biologist. Bulverism fallacy.
No, I describe the current philosophy of science.
Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. There are no proofs. A theory of science must be transcribed into a closed functional system to gain the power of prediction. One such system is mathematics. That process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.
Learn what a fact is. A fact is not a Universal Truth or a proof. Observations themselves are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Each observation is interpreted by the observer. That interpretation may not agree with another's interpretation. Observations are evidence only.
Define 'natural'. Theories are explanatory arguments. A theory of science need not explain 'natural phenomena'. They may not even be inspired from an observation at all.
The Theory of Creation, or the Theory of Creation coupled with the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Abiogenesis coupled with the Theory of Evolution.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Biology does have many falsifiable theories. The Theory of Evolution isn't one of them. Neither is the Theory of Abiogenesis. These two theories aren't even biology.
You do bring up a significant problem with the Theory of Abiogenesis. Assuming it to be True for a moment, let's look at what is required for it to succeed:
* It must produce, out of nonbiological materials, biological materials. This must be by random, naturally occurring events.
* The new cell must survive. This is in a world where no cell has survived before. This means that the world around the cell must also, by random naturally occurring events, become hospitable enough to support the new cell.
* The same thing must happen at least twice. The cell must have something to eat in order to reproduce. The result will be two cells. Now there is nothing to eat but each other. Therefore, independent abiogenesis events must happen much more than twice. Photosynthesis can't be used because that is a complex structure requiring many cells.
* The cell must be able to mutate (copy itself improperly). The fuzzy copy must be able to survive as well. Any further deviation means the daughter cell is destroyed. This ability to mutate must be inheritable or the Theory of Evolution cannot take place.
There are a LOT of random events here, that must line up in perfect sequence or there is no life or evolution possible. The odds are so high it would be like winning on every blackjack table in Las Vegas sufficient to break the bank combined.
In my opinion, the Theory of Abiogenesis has a lot of problems.
There is a further argument, regarding the research of possible Abiogenesis. Say we actually DO manage to synthesize a functioning cell in a laboratory from nonbiological materials. Is this evidence of Abiogenesis, or Creation? The cell WAS created by us, after all.
No, AS bad as. Science is incapable of prediction. Theories of science only explain, they do not predict. The power of prediction only exists in closed functional systems, like mathematics or logic. A theory of science must be transcribed into such a system to gain the power of prediction. That power comes with the formal proof.
Bookmarks