On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:06:27 -0500 you wrote:
WR>Popper's recantation --
>Sir Karl Popper said Darwinism is not science because it is not testable
>(i.e. falsifiable) -- and in return he received scathing criticism from
>Darwinians. Later he made a mild (and unconvincing to Micheal Ruse)
>recantation of the point. Since then evolutionists sight Popper's
>recantation as definitive evidence that their theory is scientific.
WR>But the reasons Popper gave in his recantation are inadequate, and
>fall down on inspection. I dismantle his recantation in an appendix
>of my book, _The Biotic Message_.
Indeed. I am still plowing through Walter's excellent (but heavy) book,
"The Biotic Message". I hadn't yet reached his Appendix which discussed
the Popper "recantation"
I found Popper's actual words illuminating:
"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection
would assert that all organisms ... have evolved as the result of
natural selection; ... If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory
is not only refutable, but actually refuted. For not all organs serve
a useful purpose: as Darwin himself points out, there are organs like
the tail of the peacock, and behavioural programmes like the peacock's
display of his tail, which cannot be explained by their utility, and
therefore not by natural selection. Darwin explained them by the
preference of the other sex, that is by sexual selection..It seems far
preferable to admit that not everything that evolves is useful, though
it is astonishing how many things are; ... In other words it seems to
me that like so many theories in biology, evolution by natural
selection is not strictly universal, though it seems to hold for a
vast number of important cases. (Popper K., 1978, "Natural Selection
and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, No. 3, p 339-355,
in (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message
Theory", St. Paul Science: Saint Paul, 1993, p486)
WR>I will be very brief here, so as not to belabor you with details.
>In effect, Popper's recantation took theory A -- Darwinian natural
>selection -- and divided it into two parts: B & C. Theory B is
>sexual selection, theory C is the 'other types' of selection. He
>then focused on the ability of theory B to **** "explain" **** the
>data better than theory C. His focus is on explanation, and his
>(arbitrary) division of Darwinism into two competing theories B and
>C. The issue of testability gets lost in the confusion -- he didn't
>discuss it. He never established the testability of theories A, B,
>or C.
Agreed. Walter's criticism is valid. By not really retracting
what he originally said, Popper by default has conceded
his earlier point that "Darwinism", is not testable:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible
framework for testable scientific theories....it is therefore
important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory but
metaphysical...." (Popper K., "Unended Quest", Fontana, Glasgow,
1976, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other
Problems", Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Revised Edition 1988,
p29).
Indeed, if "evolution by natural selection is not strictly universal",
then what has become of the Darwinism that Dawkins espouses:
"It is the contention of the Darwinian world-view that...slow,
gradual, cumulative natural selection is the ultimate explanation for
our existence. If there are versions of the evolution theory that
deny slow gradualism, and deny the central role of natural selection,
they may be true in particular cases. But they cannot be the whole
truth, for they deny the very heart of the evolution theory, which
gives it the power to dissolve astronomical improbabilities and
explain prodigies of apparent miracle." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p318)
WR>Popper's article also made the usual evolutionary error of using a
>special definition of fitness -- for example, in the special case of
>industrial melanism and the moths. Evolutionists use a special
>definition whenever they wish to show the testability of natural
>selection. But a group of disjointed, contradictory special
>definitions does not a unified theory make. Special definitions do
>not make natural selection into science. See my book for more
>details. We must reject Popper's recantation as inadequate. It
>mis-applied (or rather DIDN'T apply) his own established criterion of
>testability.
Again, I agree with Walter in his penetrating analysis. Here is
what he says about "special definitions":
"A way out of the tautology objection is with a special definition. A
special definition is when a theory (or keyword) is specially defined
for each case. Special definitions are made by redefining fitness for
each given case, resulting in a special definition of fitness. In one
instance fitness is 'cryptic coloration ' In the next it is 'high
speed.' In the next it is 'small size.' In the next it is
'aggressive behavior,' and so forth. Most everything has been used in
special definitions of fitness. Each instance of organism and
environment receives its own special definition. Special definitions
are not tautologies. Yet a theory made of more than one definition
(and especially contradictory definitions) is not science. A theory
cannot be tested when redefined for every case. Special definitions
are a multitude of disjointed, conflicting explanations masquerading
as a single, unified theory." (ReMine, p102).
Koestler believes that all these amendments to Neo-Darwinism
have negated the original intent of the theory:
"Random mutations, preserved by natural selection, without doubt play
a part in the evolutionary process-just as lucky coincidences play a
part in the evolution of science. The question is whether this is the
whole truth, or even the most important part of the truth. A number
of corrections and amendments to neo-Darwinian theory have been
proposed by evolutionists over a number of years; and if these were to
be put together, there would be little left of the original theory-as
amendments to a Parliamentary bill can reverse its emphasis and
intent. But, as already said, each critic had his particular axe to
grind, with the result that `Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone'-as
John Donne lamented when medieval cosmology was landed in a similar
crisis." (Koestler A., "The Ghost in the Machine", Arkana: London,
1967, p117)
The bottom line is that there seems to be no overarching general
theory of evolution. It is a smorgasbord of minor theories cobbled
together to look like a general scientific theory:
"Yet evolutionary illusions are so thorough that evolutionists
themselves are unaware. So I refer to an imaginary evolutionary
theorist. The theorist is the magician who produces illusions in the
mind. The illusions are achieved by selectively invoking concepts,
ideas and arguments. The theorist invokes concepts A and B to
misdirect you and accomplish end C. The central illusion of evolution
lies in making a wide array of contradictory mechanisms look like a
seamless whole. There is no single evolutionary mechanism-there are
countless. Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of
disjointed and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the
theorist. For any given question, the theorist invokes only those
mechanisms that look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits
a different response, with other mechanisms invoked and neglected.
Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure It is amorphous. It is
malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data.
Evolution accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape. In fact
evolutionary theory fails to clearly predict anything about life that
is actually true. As a result...evolution is not science." (ReMine,
p24)
There is a grand unified general theory of the origin and progressive
development of the universe and life, but it is not evolution.
Rather, this progressive development reaches its coherent unity at a
higher level than the natural realm. It is found in the plan and work
of God:
"This is the plan determined for the whole world..." (Isa 14:26);
"...the plan of him who works out everything in conformity
with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11).
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------