>
>My objection goes like this:
>
>Is there a good fossil record of transitional forms? Well, that's just what
>the evolutionary model would predict.
>
>Is the fossil record incomplete? Well, that's just what the evolutionary
>model would predict.
>
>Is the record lacking altogether? Well, that's just what the evolutionary
>model would predict.
>
>And so it goes, up & down the line.
>
>The model is so adaptable, so malleable, that, IMO, there is no conceivable
>set of scientific data that could not be subsumed by it.
>
I have received several private posts in response to this, all of which
demonstrate that many folks are missing my point, or, more likely, I did a
lousy job of articulating it.
The three questions above are supposed to represent *hypothetical*
scenarios. My point is, a theory which can easily accommodate all of them is
probably too broad and vague to be falsifiable. The most telling response I
received was from a gentleman who furnished voluminous support, from an
evolutionist viewpoint, supporting *all three* scenarios. He inadvertently
proved my point!
Relating this to the original subject of this thread, the possibility of
life on Mars, the possible scenarios and responses would go like this:
1. No life has ever existed on Mars; NASA is mistaken. Response: Why,
that's just what the evolutionary
model would predict!.
2. Life evolved on Earth and Mars, but (probably) nowhere else. Response:
Why, that's just what the evolutionary model would predict!
3. The universe is pregnant with life. Response: Why, that's just what
the evolutionary model would predict!
Maybe I'm even more dense than my kids think I am (if that were possible),
but this kind of thinking just doesn't impress me. According to Phillip
Johnson (and I agree), Marxism and Freudian psychology suffer from this same
excess of explanatory power.
Chuck the non-YEC
------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX)
"The abdication of Belief / makes the Behavior small."
----Emily Dickinson