On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 22:36:26 -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>...Therefore, no matter what evolutionists observe, they can
>always retain their belief in evolution. But, it is important for
>Christian antievolutionists to notice that the same criticism can be
>made of creationism--especially progressive creationism which
>essentially is constructed to explain everything that evolution can
>explain.
Again, if evolutionists would concede that their theory is
unfalsifiable, then I am sure that progressive creationists would be
equally happy to concede that *in the same way* their theory is also
unfalsifiable:
"The prevalence of unobservables in such fields raises difficulties
for defenders of descent who would use observability criteria to
disqualify design. Darwinists have long defended the apparently
unfalsifiable nature of their theoretical claims by reminding critics
that many of the creative processes to which they refer occur at
rates too slow to observe. Further, the core historical commitment
of evolutionary theory-that present species are related by common
ancestry-has an epistemological character that is very similar to
many present design theories. The transitional life forms that
ostensibly occupy the nodes on Darwin's branching tree of life are
unobservable, just as the postulated past activity of a Designer is
unobservable. Transitional life forms are theoretical postulations
that make possible evolutionary accounts of present biological data.
An unobservable designing agent is, similarly, postulated to explain
features of life such as its information content and functional
integration. Darwinian transitional, neo-Darwinian mutational
events, punctuationalism's "rapid branching" events, the past action
of a designing agent, none of these are directly observable. With
respect to direct observability, each of these theoretical entities
is equivalent. Thus an unexpected equivalence emerges when design and
descent are evaluated against their ability to meet specific
demarcation criteria. The demand that the theoretical entities
necessary to origins theories must be directly observable if they are
to be considered testable and scientific would, if applied
universally and disinterestedly, require the exclusion not only of
design but also of descent. Those who insist on the joint criteria
of observability and testability, conceived in a positivistic sense,
promulgate a definition of correct science that evolutionary theory
manifestly cannot meet. If, however, a less severe standard of
testability is allowed, the original reason for excluding design
evaporates. Here an analysis of specific attempts to apply
demarcation criteria against design actually demonstrates a
methodological equivalence between design and descent." (Meyer S.C.,
"The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a
Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1994,
pp83-88)
[...]
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------