R>Wait a minute. How can the fitting of data with a theory bring about a bad
GR>theory? I would think that intentionally ensuring that the data does not fi
GR>your explanation would be the shortest route to a bad theory. Is this what
GR>you are suggesting?
Your original response to my post went as follows...
PD>Personally, I see your model of the image of man arising from a
>miraculously revived chromosomally fused still born animal 5.5 million
>years ago as an attempt to satisfy two pre-assumptions... that gene
>similarities are proof of evolution and that man thus evolved
>genetically from apes.
To which you responded...
GM>Sure it is an attempt to fit both pieces of data. That is what a good theory
>should do--fit data. A theory that does not fit the data, is called a bad
>theory or a false theory.
These are not data. They are theories. Your model starts with two
theories and develops a third. Its your call as to whether the result is
bad or false by your own definition.
GR>Also, every view has presuppositions. Your view, my view, all views.
But our task is to minimize these as much as possible when interpreting
data. There is no excuse for not attempting it.
GR>Maybe yours is that evolution can
GR>not possibl;y be true.
Not by your model.
GR>>That is what evolution often generates... theories layered upon
GR>>theories, not strictly the piecing of data... and thus by your
GR>>definition, successively weaker theories. That is why we have the law of
GR>>parsimony... Occam's razor... to hold us accountable.
GR>>
GR>Who says that Occam was right? Why must nature be simple? Creationists are
GR>always talking about how complex living systems are and how unexplainable.
GR>Shouldn't Occam's razor be applied there?
If you are willing to depart from that simple and important rule, fine.
I just believe that the potential for error increases exponentially with
each unnecessary multiplication and layering of presumptive entities.
GR>But I must ask. Where exactly in the Bible does it say that evolution didn'
GR>happen?
You have asked this often. It raises some interesting analogies.
Let's say that a man comes to my door and asks me where my neighbor is.
I respond that I do not know because he did not tell me. The man says
"Then it is quite possible that he has moved, or can you produce a
letter that says that he did not?". I say that I cannot. He says, "Well,
I have seen this before and I know that he moved."
He may be right, he may be wrong. The point being that thismode of logic
doesn't establish truth.
Paul Durham
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu