Royalbill: That’s a very bizarre and ad-hoc prediction. I would like to see the scientists proposing such an explanation to apply rigorous self-criticism and use the full power of their intellect to create a testable prediction that would tend to disprove their own theory.
This sort of reasoning reminds me of the humorous theory that the surface of the earth is really the inside surface of a sphere. The sun, the planets, the stars, are actually inside the sphere. By making very unusual assumptions about the properties of space, they can actually “explain” everything observed.
The real beauty of the this “theory” is that it’s really testable! However, the only test which could disprove it would be to drill a hole through the center of the earth. If you reach the other side after 8,000 and some miles, then the theory would be conclusively disproved. In fact, the traditional theory (that we’re on the outside of a sphere) is equally testable: If we don’t find the other side then it conclusively fails.
But the inside-out theory fails the test of Occam’s razor. Absent the test, since it’s indistinguishable from our traditional view of space, and requires unnecessary and weird assumptions, it’s a useless theory.
I have much the same opinion of “traditional-equivalent” Creationist theories. If they say, everything looks normal (i.e. we can’t actually perform any tests that would disprove it), but our observations are really the effects of some inside-out theory that the Bible justifies then what use is it? The traditional theory is simpler and requires fewer assumptions.
Of course, if a Creationist theory makes testable preditions that differ from traditional theories, and the empirical evidence supports the Creationist theory, then it warrants another look. But I’ve seen nothing, no evidence whatsoever that warrants adopting a single Creationist theory.
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.