>I detect a trap being laid. ... So let me untangle several things in
>Steve's question, in hopes, perhaps vain, of avoiding some trap.
>
>Not all truth is scientific. Science aims for that portion of truth that
>exposes itself to a certain type of rigor, especially empirical test.
>
>I would accept evolution within science: (1) if it could be sufficiently
>demonstrated (anywhere, in the lab, in breeding pens, in the field), or (2)
>if it exposed itself to serious risk and falsification. It does neither, so
>it is not science.
I doubt if I am sufficiently clever to trap you Walter.
As I understand the criticism, those who claim that Darwinian evolution is
not science do so because natural selection cannot be recreated or observed,
and is not directly accessible for testing (Walter's points 1 and 2). But
there exist countless examples of science exploring areas that were not
"sufficiently demonstrated". Sometimes this science is justifiably trashed
(e.g., phrenology), sometimes the concepts were held onto and we
subsequently learned the underlying mechanisms--in other words, that which
was not 'science' mysteriously became 'science'. For instance, the concept
of genes was around a long time without a gene being sufficiently
demonstrated. Molecular and atomic theory preceded any direct knowledge of
molecules or atoms. In these cases, we sometimes clung to theories that
were largely philosophical (not too unusual considering the historical roots
of science in natural philosophy) and not empirical. In these cases we had
some indirect observation of the consequences of the philosophy, which
compelled us to hold on to the theories. Thus, Mendel could predict the
color and shape of his peas, but knew nothing about genes.
My point is, science is a branch of philosophy (although scientists are
often poor philosophers), and has a splendid history of investigation that
which cannot be directly tested. Those who want natural selection to be
falsifiable mean that they want it proven before they will accept it as
science. The problem here is the failure to distinguish between theories
which are, by definition, unproven, and that which has been proven and is no
longer theoretical.
Another point: On 11/18, Walter wrote:
"I provided a testable creationist theory of biology. I've defended it at
length in my book _The Biotic Message_, on talk.origins, and here on this
reflector.
Given Walter's criteria #1 above, that evolution "..be sufficiently
demonstrated (anywhere, in the lab, in breeding pens, in the field)", I
would be interested in seeing something created anywhere.
Like natural selection which is not observable (on a macroevolutionary
scale), so too, the mechanisms of other theories of origins are equally
intractable to us at this stage. As I posted before, a field in which a
prevailing theory is difficult to test directly will often have counter
theories equally difficult to test. This lies in the fact that sometimes
testability exceeds our observational capabilities.
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody
asks me" Augustine'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________