I'm still not sure why you feel it's incumbent upon scientists to reject =
even other variants of evolution simply because the oldest, traditional =
version of it ran into a very specific problem that newer versions deal =
with relatively neatly.
(2) Second main issue: does evolutionary theory work better simply =
because natural science demands methodlogical naturalism as part of what =
counts as "working", as you insist? I have not yet seen evidence of =
this, thouogh tactically, I think this you still have a legitimate =
concern. Tactically, science requires methodological naturalism right =
now; strategically, it doesn't.
Tactically, science requires methodological naturalism because as =
science has evolved all the predictively most successful theories have =
had this feature in common, and it keeps things simpler and more =
concrete. (Imagine if Newton's laws had to try to incorporate various =
aspects of the will of God, angels, demons, etc., and yet still be =
experimentally testable. How would this be done?) It wasn't always =
this way (Bible science was common in the 17th and 18th centuries, I =
believe), and this isn't strategically essential to science itself. But =
to change this time-honored presumption, you'll need to show that your =
new version of the scientific enterprise is more useful. How?
If some version of miraculous creationism could end up making broadly =
better predictions than traditional evolutionary theory, the presumption =
in favor of methodological naturalism could gradually be overcome, I =
believe. But I am aware of no compelling signs whatever that that's =
about to happen.
Jim, let me ask you this: do you think any current creationistic =
theories that involve miraculous divine intervention as a part of the =
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions concerning currently =
unknown phenomena?
If so, and you seem to believe so, could you give examples? (It would =
be great if we could get a list of the top 5 predictions about things of =
which we're currently ignorant from each camp -- top five evolutionary =
predictions, and the top five miraculous creation predictions -- and =
then wait 10 years and compare the results. Ideally, we would find 5 A =
versus non-A predictions.)
If not, why not?
And if not, do you think that evolutionary theory should be replaced =
even though its competitors make poorer predictions (which is not at all =
to say that evolution, particularly when speaking broadly, makes very =
precise predictions [one needs to get down to specific variants before =
one can get somewhat precise predictions about unknown phenomena])?
Remember: I'm not asking about where evolutionary theory, especially in =
its broadest, most vague versions, doesn't make clear predictions and so =
is less than precisely satisfactory. There are plenty of examples of =
that, we agree. I'm asking where miraculous creation theories offer =
better predictions. (After all, it may well be that evolutionary theory =
is like democracy and capitalism: the worst systems around, except for =
all the others.)
Or perhaps science should move away from empirically predictive (or =
explanatory?) success, in your view?
I think you must go one way or the other here, and maybe this is the =
watershed dividing you from most scientists: if you think empirical =
success should be the guiding light, then even empirically weak (viz a =
viz physics, e.g.) theories like evolution broadly construed will =
prevail until a miraculous creation rival can do better. (Evolution =
narrowly construed can do much better or worse, empirically.) On the =
other hand, if you don't think that empirical success should be the =
guiding light, then come out and say so, and we can debate that. And =
this question is legitimate -regardless- of any issue of methodlogical =
naturalism.
--John
P. S. The "functional" versus "historical" breakdown os science is =
inadequate, I believe. Even historical science is very functionally =
oriented, trying to make predictions about genetics, the fossil record, =
etc. Truth is its long-term goal, I agree, as it is in all science =
(except for post-moderns, certain positivists, and certain radical =
Kuhnians). But that doesn't mean there isn't a strongly pragamatic, =
results-oriented focus in the historical sciences just as in the =
operational sciences. And on this results-oriented basis, the =
miraculous creation theories have, so far anyway, come up a bit short.
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@compuserve.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 1:23 PM
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: RE: Latest on Mars
John Rylander writes:
<< Actually, according to PE, it's not so much the absence of data, but =
=3D
the data of absence. This is an important distinction, I think you will =
=3D
admit. Darwin hoped the record as known simply reflected an absence of =
=3D
data; Gould et al have concluded it is rather data that there is an =3D
absence of transitional forms extending over long periods of time.>>
I agree with you. And that has been my point. In the face of Darwinian=20
prediction, we have an absence of the predicted data. Yes, you can=20
characterize this as a pattern which we'll now call "the data of =
absence." But
in the context of the prediction, I call it a hearty blow to the theory.
<< However, as you note, in =3D
using "evolution" broadly to mean either gradualistic or =3D
non-gradualistic evolution, the gradualism or non-gradualism displayed =
=3D
in the fossil or other records is no longer capable of falsifying =3D
"evolution" so broadly construed>>
I agree with this too.
<< Why in the world would people stick with a =3D
theory when the data dramatically underdetermine it? Because science is =
=3D
concerned at least as much with what works as with the truth....However, =
to=20
say a theory is the best scientific theory available does =3D
not mean it is the ultimate truth. It may be true but only =3D
approximately so, or it may be at a fundamental level dead wrong.>>
I have a problem with this. I think it mixes two forms of science. In=20
functional science, we deal with "what works" because it is USEFUL =
(e.g.,=20
finding out what causes leukemia, and working against that, is highly =
useful).
But historical science, which seeks to explain things like origins (as=20
paleontology does), we are NOT concerned with "what works," but with =
"what=20
happened." And here truth IS the important goal. There can be no other =
goal.
<< One of the biggest reasons evolutionary theory is almost universally =
=3D
accepted amongst scientists is that it works better than any rival.>>
This is the sort of statement that drives us TR's up a wall. =
Evolutionary=20
theory ONLY "works" because NATURALISM DEMANDS a non-interventionist =
answer!=20
Well, I don't work for a system that makes those demands. I work for a =
system=20
that lets the chips fall where they may. [I almost wrote "the CHIMPS =
fall=20
where they may." That would have been clever, eh?]
And I would say, in light of the design evidence at the micro-biological =
level, TR "works" better than any naturalistic theory.=20
<< So, why not praise evolutionary theory for being the best thing the =
=3D
natural sciences can come up with>>
I can say it, but it is scant praise. It is the best it can do, because =
it is=20
locked into naturalistic assumptions. I might as well praise cockroaches =
because they can only eat garbage, but I'd still rather be a human =
being.
Anyway, that's the big difference for me. Evolutionary theory offers to=20
explain the way things really happen (truth). Most people, including me, =
don't
believe it happened that way.=20
Jim
=20