In my view, evolutionary theory is not scientific because it is neither
sufficiently demonstrated nor testable.
Steve responds by taking the heat off evolutionary theory, demonstration,
and testability. He shifts the discussion to other things, such as: how
science 'explores areas', and how scientists "sometimes clung to theories
that were largely philosophical", and science has a "splendid history of
investigating that which cannot be directly tested." All of that is
misdirection, it focuses your attention on how science "explores" and
"investigates"', and on how scientists "clung". It misdirects your
attention away from explanations (such as evolutionary theory) and onto
matters that are vague and irrelevant.
Steve also mentions that Mendel's theory could predict the color and shape
of peas, without a clear concept of genes -- which is true, but Mendel's
concepts still made predictions, were demonstrable and testable. But that
too is misdirection, as Steve still hasn't identified a test of
macroevolution, the central issue at hand.
Here is Steve's discussion, for documentation sake:
>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.
Not true. Steve mis-represented the opponents to natural selection. To see
the distortion just replace "natural selection" with "astrology", and see
how it mis-represents the opponents to astrology.
******
>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.
That's more run-around. Steve still hasn't shown how evolution is testable.
-- Walter ReMine