Szymcionorski - Science Communication

How (generally speaking) do we determine which scientific theory is valid or not? Typically, we look at the evidence to see if there's any supporting or refuting that theory. But what happens if... we are inherently unable to even hypothetically find evidence that could refute it? Here comes the concept of falsifiability . Falsifiability is a concept introduced by Karl Popper - a famous philosopher of science known for his rejection of the classical inductivist view on the scientific method. The concept is typically defined as: "Standard of evaluation of scientific statements, including theories and hypotheses. A statement is falsifiable if it belongs to a language or logical structure capable of describing an empirical observation that contradicts it."  Karl Popper in year 1990. But, you may ask, why do I think that falsifiability is important? Well, if we can't falsify  a scientific claim then we essentially can never evaluate whether or not it is ...

Hello everyone! My nickname is Szymcionorski (spelled Shym-chyo-nor-skee) and here I plan to upload some content regarding creationism and science communication (aside from my YouTube channel " Polish "Evolutionist" (Szymcionorski) " dedicated to the same goal and Szymcionorski's website that serves as my work's information hub). But what about the title of this blog post? Simply put - I do not see essentially any evidence that would validate claims made by creationism in general.  A good example of that is a common argument used by them regarding "new information". From what I've observed the argument usually starts with a given creationist claiming that x evolutionary transition requires huge amounts of "new information" and thus their opponent should provide a mechanism for which this supposed information could arise. Then the person defending evolution gives examples like gene duplication, de novo gene birth and sequence mod...