Is the ability to make accurate predictions a good criteria for deciding the truth of a theory? Suppose for example I believe in the creationist account of Noah's flood and that the fossil record will always show a progression of lifeforms from the aquatic to the semi-aquatic to land-based because that is simply the order in which they were killed by the flood. Fish, then frogs, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals and birds, because that is the order in which they were drowned by the flooding of the earth by fresh water. And lo and behold that prediction holds true. But that doesn't mean the creationist account of the flood is necessarily true. Take another example. There was a time when people believed the night air to be noxious and full of vapors that can make you sick. So people would avoid going out at night to keep from getting sick. Turns out they WOULD tend to avoid sickness, but not for the reason they thought. What was really happening is their body temp was not being lowered thus making them less susceptible to illness. The theory allowed for accurate predictions, and yet was totally fallacious. A theory therefore MAY allow for accurate predictions, but NOT be true. Is predictability necessarily correlative to truth?