<< In the absence of a good alternative, evolution remains the hypothesis that
is tested whether it is right or wrong. >>
This is the game, isn't it? If you get to be the one who defines what is a
"good alternative," you can leave evolution as the ONLY hypothesis, "whether
it is right or wrong." [!]
This is what theistic realism shakes its head at. It is, at heart, the sort of
metaphysical leap you appear to eschew. I've not seen a better example of the
sort of bias Johnson writes about in "Reason in the Balance" than the above
statement. Where does it say the definition of what is real and what can be
considered comes out of Madison, WI? Where have you found the tablets which
say reality can only be defined in materialist terms? (That would leave you to
wonder who wrote the tablets, but of course that question cannot be asked.
There is always a naturalistic hypothesis--e.g., the blowing of the winds, the
tap dancing of beetles--which one can test, whether it is right or wrong.)
JB <<How long, Glenn? Until the data reaches a conclusory peak. That's how
science works>>
SC <<This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses.>>
Wow, this is the first time I've heard it argued that testing hypotheses
yields no data! What is the point now of "testing hypotheses" if it is not to
gather data and assess it?
Anticipating a rueful answer that this is just a rhetorical "trick," let me
assure you I am in absolute earnest here. The substantial geological data that
has been gathered yields a fairly "rock solid" conclusion. How can it be
otherwise? You test, you get more information. That sort of testing has not
happened in biological evolution. I'll grant you a giant "YET," but I won't
grant you the spurious idea that "testing hypotheses" is unrelated to
gathering information. Perhaps you wrote in haste.
<< 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.>>
That is a different matter. And it is, as I mentioned at the start, more of a
metaphysical decision than you appreciate, IMO.
<<The problem here is two fold. 1) design is not a mechanistic hypothesis.
Rather it is a metaphysical world-view. 2) Design is not inconsistent with
evolution, because evolution, properly considered, is a mechanistic
hypothesis and not a metaphysical world-view. An omnipotent designer could
create via evolution. This is the crux of the EC position. >>
The entire question must be viewed as a metaphysical, as well as physical,
debate. Otherwise, reality is skewed in favor of naturalism. Why? No one has
ever given a good answer (it has been suggested that science is a "game," and
that the rules of science are there because it is the only way the game can be
played with any certainty. That's nice, but it leaves aside the important
considerations of truth and reality. These are not games to me).
I agree with your #2. No problem. The question is DID he? Despite
protestations to the contrary, looking at past data is about all we can do.
Sure, we can perform controlled experiments that may indicate something or
other is possible. Did it happen thus? The loud affirmations from
evolutionists can also be mistaken for the sound of minds snapping closed.
Jim