The problem lies in the fact that we have used the terms "evolution" and
"Darwinism" in at least five different meanings:
Ev_Dar) A theory of species origin based upon Darwin's ideas about the
units of heredity, the pattern of inheritance, the mechanisms of
mutation, the rate of mutations, the complexity of mapping genes
to morphology, and population dynamics.
Ev_Mod) A theory of species origin based upon modern ideas about the
units of heredity, the pattern of inheritance, the mechanisms of
mutation, the rate of mutations, the complexity of mapping genes
to morphology, and population dynamics.
Ev_Cor) The ideas which have remained unchanged from Darwin to the
present.
Ev_MN) The evolutionists' _practice_ of modifying their auxilliary
hypotheses to fit new data.
Ev_PN) The philosophical committment of some evolutionists that, no
matter what new data is discovered, life MUST have evolved via
purely natural mechanisms.
----
When I mentioned that Ev_Dar has been falsified; Walter replied that
this does not show that evolution is testable, because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are
untestable and unfalsifiable.
When I sketched the outlines of a test for Ev_Mod; Walter replied that
this does not show that evolution is testable, because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are
untestable and unfalsifiable.
When I gave an example of an observation which would falsify Ev_Cor;
Walter replied that "dramatic observations do not count, and besides,
Ev_MN / Ev_PN are untestable and unfalsifiable.
When I offered to construct a very specific test of Ev_mod using the
latest results on the molecules I study; Walter replied that this does not
test evolution because Ev_MN / Ev_PN are untestable and unfalsifiable.
Each time this happened, in a flash of irony, Walter paused to chastise
evolutionists for "the usual diversions," "a farce," "the same old
run-around," "thousands of outs and excuses," and "never really discussing
the testability of evolution."
(If any readers want to confirm that this is, in fact, what has been
happening, I encourage you to check the archives. Here's a bonus for any
readers who are still with us: I've found an easy and reasonably
effective way of filtering Walter's prose. Simply ignore the first
sentence of each paragraph, ignore the second sentence if it includes a
person's name, and ignore the last sentence if it is less than 7 words
long. Read the rest. This filters out roughly half of the straw-men and
quick mis-characterizations, and it gives you a fighting chance to figure
out the actual (frequently serious) point lurking within Walter's
"nails-on-chalkboard" prose style.)
I'd like to exit this discussion on a note of harmony. Walter ReMine has
shown that, no matter how many tests of Ev_Mod scientists propose,
perform, or publish, Ev_MN and Ev_PN are untestable and unfalsifiable.
I agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it was so, it might be; |
and if it were so, it would be; | Loren Haarsma
but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
-- Tweedledee (Lewis Carroll) |