David Campbell wrote:
>
> >Your prediction is not precise enough to allow for any kind of testing
> >of the actualy outcome vs. the forecast. Bert M.
>
> Without the data, precise prediction is impossible; however, there is the
> prediction that a large mutation or an accumulation of small mutations with
> large net effect may occur. Given the current interest in developmental
> genetics, I would not be surprised if labs are soon (years to decades) able
> to make fish with legs, amphibians with eggshells, and similar evolutionary
> transitions.
******
Addin one gene set to another does not prove evolutionary invention.
************
Unless Christians acknowledge God's ability to do such
> things, they will be in trouble.
>
> On the other hand, I cannot think of any testable prediction of an
> intelligent design pattern without observing the designer designing, even
> if we had the data.
If the designer can do whatever he likes, how can one
> predict it?
*********
Absolutely correct. We do not know the mind of the desiger and cannot
through our own means predict what he will do and never did claim so.
Testabel prediction is not a criteria for belief in God.
Much knowledge that portents to have "scientific" basis has support from
rigorous laboratory testing. I like to call this "hard science" and
maybee there is a better term but I want to differentiate this from
"forensic science" is this is important. The differentiation is
significant because those who want science to be our beacon want
"forensic science" to have the same standing as "hard science."
HS can be tested by an experiment. The experiment is quantitative and
can be repeated by many researchers over many generations. At some
point, it can be accepted as truth but the underlying issue is always
that the next generation should extend, test, and re-think.
Evolutionary theories of large innovations (not splicing a leg gene set
onto a fish) cannot be tested. Or at least, no one here or elsewhere
that I know who thinks so. Further, there does not seem to be a
formutation of an "evolutionary law" from which we can write down
predictions and run into the laboratory and test.
This does not mean that evolution is not a valid explanation but it does
mean that it is not HS. Evolution as an explanation for invention to be
tested would take far too much time and too many generations so the
belief goes.
However(oops), the counter to this (and Carl Sagan tells of this in one
of his books) is the crazy little fruit fly. Dawg gone it. They have
raised millions and millions of these little bugs and put all kinds of
evolutionary stress on them and they just will not evolve( at least
according to Sagan).
Bert M
>
> David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 14 2000 - 11:35:12 EST