Brian writes:
>... let me re-emphasize my points:
>
> a) at issue is the testability of natural selection, not evolution
Natural selection is not testable, and neither is evolutionary theory (in
any of its current incarnations). The evolutionists' continual shifting
between various definitions of "Darwinism" and "evolutionary theory",
etecetra, merely confuses readers away from that central point. The issue
of testability gets diverted into endless discussions about definitions, ...
and the issue of testability is conveniently left behind.
> b) Popper changed his mind
>
>What this means is that an argument like "Mr. Falsifiability
>himself says that evolution is not falsifiable" must be
>put away. First of all, it's just an argument from authority
>anyway. Secondly, if one is aware that Popper changed his mind
>then it is a dishonest argument from authority.
It is Brian (and other evolutionists) who are making an argument from
authority. In practice they do not simply say "Popper changed his mind".
They're not that coy. In practice they say "Mr. Testability himself now
says that evolution is testable" -- an argument from authority.
Moreover, if you are aware -- as you now are -- that Popper's recantation
used faulty reasoning, then it is dishonest to blindly cite his recantation
for others.
>Now, you are free to argue all you want to about the testability
>of evolutionary theory in general or natural selection in
>particular. That's fine and dandy. But you should not imply
>that Popper agrees with any of this.
Popper's recantation was lackluster, and scarcely mentioned testability:
which was (or should have been) the central issue of the recantment, and an
issue on which he was a renowned expert. That incredible oversight can
hardly pass without drawing comment. Popper's original denunciations of
Darwinism drew scathing disapproval from evolutionists worldwide, and his
"recantation" is more a testament to the pressures that a scientific society
can bring to bear. (It is not the only time evolutionists have induced a
"recantation" from a straying member.)
Moreover, I am not the only one who doubts Popper's recantation. Let me
cite evolutionist Micheal Ruse's reaction to it:
"[Since Popper made his original charges against natural selection]
Popper himself has modified his position somewhat;
***but disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really
believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.***"
(Ruse, 1982, p 133, my emphasis)
******
>Now, I am assuming from your post that you do not consider
>evolutionary theory to be testable. I have not read your
>book, however, I think I am safe to assume that this
>(non-testability) is the only argument that you give against
>evolutionary theory, i.e. I assume that you don't actually
>try to test it in any way.
That assumption about my book would be quite mistaken. For example, I show
many cases where evolutionary theorists contradict themselves and each
other. By quoting evolutionists I show that evolutionary theory has no
coherent structure. There is more, but my book is not our subject here.
******
>WR:=============
>>We must reject
>>Popper's recantation as inadequate.
>
>You can reject Popper's reasons all you want, but you can't reject
>his recantation. To recant or not to recant was Popper's decision
>and his alone. It is silly to say you reject it.
There goes Brian again, arguing from authority. I reject Popper's
recantation, so does Micheal Ruse, and so should you once you understand
it's faulty reasoning.
<Snip a lot of stuff where Brian was dodging the testability issue, and now
expresses wonderment at why I objected to that.>
>You talk about explanation as if its a dirty word. One test of a
>theory is its ability to explain data. Agree or disagree?
Explanation is not a dirty word. All scientific theories must explain
something about the empirical world. But that requirement is easily met,
even stories about Paul Bunyon 'explain' the empirical world. The problem
is that evolutionists dodge the testability issue by diverting it into
endless discussions about definitions and explanations. Natural selection
is not testable, and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
What is the ultimate way to escape the charge of untestability?
Answer:
>Walter, I'm just a lowly mechanician. I have no theory of evolution.
Nice dodge: 'Who me? What theory of evolution?'
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128