From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 16:51:16 EST
George Murphy wrote:
> A very simple & broad statement of evolutionary theory is not hard to give:
> Biological species change over long periods of time, with some
>becoming extenct and some
> new species arising from old. Various species are thus related to
>one another. Such
> ideas are, of course, not uniquely Darwinian.
> Michael has correctly noted several ways in which such a
>simple theory could be
> falsified. (I waive for now the right to raise questions about the
>falsification
> criterion in view of the possibility of always defending a theory's
>"hard core" with
> auxiliary hypotheses.) This simple theory has not been falsified.
>There is, in fact,
> no serious question about its correctness or its character as a
>scientific theory.
> The question of _how_ evolution takes place is of course
>more difficult. But we
> would avoid a lot of wasted time & posturing if we would agree that
>it _has_ taken
> place.
I would say, George, that this almost equivalent to saying that a
theory of gravity is that
objects (e.g. apples) always fall to the ground.
The essence of a theory is that is a proposed mechanism for HOW
something happens. Without
that, it is just philosophy -- not science.
For the most part, many on this list differ in practically no respect
from my close Deist
friend: "God does intervene in the physical universe -- end of
story". So here we are in
the same category as a Deist -------- That truly is what is what the
"Science" posts on this
list amount to. What a great way to win people to Jesus Christ!
And, it absolutely _WOULD_ be possible to falsify your postulate, George.
(For Gravity: Release a balloon filled with helium)
For evolution: All that one has to do is show a species with no
evident chain from a
previous species. (Of course you would then claim incompleteness of
the fossil record --
would you not?)
I am NOT "posturing". I am simply calling to task those who criticize
creationists when
there own theory does not satisfy their own scientific criteria. Am
I incorrect? If so,
how? (if I may ask a "how" question.)
I am currently engaged in a discussion with people in a local
Christian church. Some are
scientists. Some are not. I cannot say that this ASA exchange has
helped much in filtering
out those precious few who do not already have an unobjective
outlook ( "all possible
"truths" should be considered" and evaluated).
Does anyone out there know know of an OBJECTIVE treatment of both
sides of the issues?
(I do have copy of Howard Van Till's Recent ID=DI? paper. Certainly
one of the most useful
so-far!!!)
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) ===================================
--------------20DF97221E3FDA61D4DA035C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <p>George Murphy wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>A very simple & broad statement of evolutionary theory is not hard to give: <br>Biological species change over long periods of time, with some becoming extenct and some <br>new species arising from old. Various species are thus related to one another. Such <br>ideas are, of course, not uniquely Darwinian. <br> Michael has correctly noted several ways in which such a simple theory could be <br>falsified. (I waive for now the right to raise questions about the falsification <br>criterion in view of the possibility of always defending a theory's "hard core" with <br>auxiliary hypotheses.) This simple theory has not been falsified. There is, in fact, <br>no serious question about its correctness or its character as a scientific theory. <br> The question of _how_ evolution takes place is of course more difficult. But we <br>would avoid a lot of wasted time & posturing if we would agree that it _has_ taken <br>place.</blockquote>
<p><br>I would say, George, that this almost equivalent to saying that a theory of gravity is that objects (e.g. apples) always fall to the ground. <p>The essence of a theory is that is a proposed mechanism for <b><i><u>HOW</u></i></b> something happens. Without that, it is just philosophy -- not science. <p>For the most part, many on this list differ in practically no respect from my close Deist friend: "God does intervene in the physical universe -- end of story". So here we are in the same category as a Deist -------- That truly is what is what the "Science" posts on this list amount to. What a great way to win people to Jesus Christ! <p>And, it absolutely _WOULD_ be possible to falsify your postulate, George. <br>(For Gravity: Release a balloon filled with helium) <br>For evolution: All that one has to do is show a species with no evident chain from a previous species. (Of course you would then claim incompleteness of the fossil record -- would you not?) <p>I am NOT "posturing". I am simply calling to task those who criticize creationists when there own theory does not satisfy their own scientific criteria. Am I incorrect? If so, how? (if I may ask a "how" question.) <p>I am currently engaged in a discussion with people in a local Christian church. Some are scientists. Some are not. I cannot say that this ASA exchange has helped much in filtering out those precious few who do not already have an unobjective outlook ( "all possible "truths" should be considered" and evaluated). <p>Does anyone out there know know of an OBJECTIVE treatment of both sides of the issues? <p>(I do have copy of Howard Van Till's Recent ID=DI? paper. Certainly one of the most useful so-far!!!) <p>Walt <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <p>-- <br>=================================== <br>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> <p>In any consistent theory, there must <br>exist true but not provable statements. <br>(Godel's Theorem) <p>You can only find the truth with logic <br>If you have already found the truth <br>without it. (G.K. Chesterton) <br>=================================== <br> <br> </html>
--------------20DF97221E3FDA61D4DA035C--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:10:34 EST