Faith writes:
But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test.
I think you misunderstand the nature of testing scientific hypotheses. It's all about the logical consequences of a hypothesis. If A is true then as a direct consequence of that B should also be true. Other theories may attempt to
explain a phenomenon once discovered. But the true test of a theory, the gold standard, is to predict a new phenomenon which is then discovered.
For example consider the
Big Bang. If the BB theory is correct then there must be a cosmic background radiation as a direct logical consequence of that.
quote:
After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
quote:
The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.
Why we make predictions and test them? We do this because it is the most exacting and most objective test of our theories we can come up with. It is relatively easy to construct a theory that meets all the known facts and yet which is full of subjective biases and wrong turns. But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing.
This is the thing those who proclaim 'it's all just interpretation' seem to keep missing. Where are all the creationist discoveries?