SG>pdd> That is what evolution often generates... theories layered upon
SG>pdd> theories, not strictly the piecing of data... and thus by your
SG>pdd> definition, successively weaker theories. That is why we have the law o
SG>pdd> parsimony... Occam's razor... to hold us accountable.
SG>pdd> Creationism starts with one preassumption... the how... that original
SG>pdd> species were created by God and were not the product of evolution. Data
SG>pdd> is then fit to that model to establish the when, what, and where. A
SG>pdd> much simpler and thus stronger theory by your standards.
SG>Paul you make a great point. Evolution is based on a theory. Creationism is
SG>not, it is as you write a preassumption.
Evolution wears many hats... it can be a theory, a preassumption, or a
proposal. It lacks Einstein's "inner perfection".
Creationism is also a theory as many scientists have made great pains to
point out... i.e. an explanation for observed phenomena. The
preassumption is that God created. Evolution too, is also based on a
preassumption... that God did not create.
ISG>A theory must be disprovable or it is not a theory.
Of course this generally only works in the physical sciences. In them
the predictive aspects are usually observable or numerical, or as a
rule... quantitative. Theories of origins cannot do this because they
rely so much more on interpreting historical evidence rather than
observing phenomena. They cannot be reproduced and are thus less
disprovable. They give explanation rather than the rule.
Now then, all theories utilize assumptions that cannot be immediately
subject to test. The layering of these assumptions (or their
interdependency) weakens the theory. The current evolutionary model
under discussion does this. The counter-argument presented by Glenn was
that a theory is good if it provides a prediction. The earth-centered
universe theory provided many predictions that were correct, such as the
perception that the sun moved around the earth by watching it rise and
set on the horizon . We later saw that it was not a good theory.
In complex and layered theories, predictions tend to validate the
hypothesis or proposal closest to the prediction rather than their
general assumptions. In Glenn's model, if we found evidence of his
prediction of man in the Miocene/Pliocene boundary we would still not
validate his entire proposal of man emerging from a chromasome-fused
still-borne ape millions of years ago.
So, there is more to consider than prediction, and in balance the sum of
the whole is greater (or sometimes less!), than the individual parts.
SG>Take for example the Christian model of the
SG>universe. While it differed from that of Copernicus's and Galileo's , it eas
SG>adjusted. It did so because it was a preassumption, not a theory. Creation
SG>can likewise adjust (or evolve - so to speek).
All theories are shaped by the philosophical biases of their time.The
model of the universe prior to Galileo and Copernicus was actually a
theory with an Egypto-Greek origin. It was not a Christian theory, it
was a scientific one. It was a result of the philosophical synthesis of
its time. It was a theory... an explanation of observed phenomena,
interpreted by and through the philosophical bias of the age. That
original philosophical bias continued through much of the middle ages.
When that bias weakened new theories were given attention.
Evolution was shaped by its age as well... the synthesis of growing
materialism and naturalism in the mid 19th century. If one leans toward
or has a naturalistic-materialistic bias, one could much more easily
accept or form an evolutionary proposal... to the point that the
opposite possibility seems so unrealistic as to not even merit
consideration. Galileo's circumstances... "deja' vu all over again".
As a result doors to truth remain closed. That is why I have argued for
a full synthesis of the various disciplines in order to gain a better
understanding of the question of origins.
According to Thomas Kuhn, the scientific trade cannot practice its craft
without some previously received body of belief, philosophy,
assumptions, and rules. In fact, the success of a scientific concept
sometimes speaks more about the readiness of the community to accept it
rather than whether it is true or not. Our philosophical bias plays more
of a role than we would admit.
Paul Durham
to: IN:sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu