Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 07:19:43 EST

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer"

    You left out the part of defining what is the theory. These would be just
    data or facts.

    What is the scientific theory that is being falsified as distinguished (for
    example) from God creating at various times in an OEC theory?

    Michael Roberts wrote:

    > Evolution is easily falsifiable.
    > 1.) Find human fossils in the mid-Tertiary or earlier
    > 2.) Find palaeozoic mammals
    > 3) Precambrian vertebrates.
    > 4) A young or a youngish earth i.e less than 100 million - consider what
    > Kelvin nearly did to evolution after 1860
    > 5)0 our DNA more like insects than rats
    >
    > We could go on.
    >
    > Hasn't anyone got the skill to falsify evolution on these points
    >
    > Michael
    >
    > > I have raised this issue before and nobody seems to be willing to
    > > back up the claim
    > > that evolution is a real scientific theory. If is is, then it can be
    > > simply stated
    > > and then have a definite set of conditions under which it can be
    > > falsified. If it
    > > is not a falsifiable theory which can be invalidated somehow, then it
    > > is no more a
    > > scientific theory than ID is!
    > >
    > > In my opinion, the evolutionary THEORY, not the "FACT", (excuse the
    > > capitals) is
    > > just a set of shifting sand that is adamantly supported by scientists
    > > who refuse to
    > > yield any ground at all in their quest for absolute scientific
    > aturalism ---
    > > proven or not. Slapping Band-Aids year after year on Darwin's first
    > > notions hardly
    > > makes for an acceptable theory by most scientific standards in other
    > fields.
    > >
    > > IMO
    > >
    > > Walt
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ===================================
    > > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    > >
    > > In any consistent theory, there must
    > > exist true but not provable statements.
    > > (Godel's Theorem)
    > >
    > > You can only find the truth with logic
    > > If you have already found the truth
    > > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    > > ===================================
    > >
    > > 

    --
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 09:42:49 EST