>In order to get science (in this case
>evolutionists) to use accept and give up old, inadequate hypotheses requires
>that ANOTHER, BETTER HYPOTHESIS come along. Simply pointing to data that
>are inconsistent for a given hypothesis is not sufficient to induce the
>Kuhnian-type of paradigm shift. Also, pointing out that certain experiments
>have not been performed is also not sufficient to cause a paradigm shift.
I suspect that YEC critics of science tend to think of science as an
exercise in logic. Either a proposition is true or it isn't. If it isn't,
then of course no one would want to base further hypotheses on it. But the
situation in science is more complex than that. Evolution for example is
not one single hypothesis. It's a fairly complex model of how
evolutionists believe genetic changes and environmental stimuli interact to
produce change. It includes many principles, hypotheses, etc. Is it
perfect? No, because it is a partial model representing our current state
of understanding. How will the model be improved and incorrect aspects of
it corrected? By additional experiment and observation. How will we
determine which experiments to pursue? The model's predictions will tell
us where experimental work is needed to either increase our confidence in
the model or point out where it is weak or incorrect. So ashcanning a
model because of some anomalous facts would cripple our ability to proceed
with advancing our understanding.
Bill Hamilton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148