DG
>> >Who needs theory when one has facts ? Besides a bad theory is worst
>than
>> >no theory.
SC
>> I wonder what facts you refer to?
DG
>At the facts that the fossil record reveal of course. All show the same
>thing: no transitional forms. So where is evolution there ? Where are
>the transitional forms between mineral and vegetable or vegetable and
>animal life forms ? If all of these great number of events happened then
>proof must be all over the globe. But is it there ? . Not a single trace.
> Now we take a broken half lower jaw and come up with an ape-looking 'human
>ancestor' and we call it our great-great-(to the n power) relative. Is
>this really good science ?
You make a valid point that paleontologists should consider. However, what
you mention, the putative absence of transitional forms, does not represent
positive proof of the error of evolution theory. While the absence of
transitional forms may be predicted by special creation, this is not the
only theory to explain this lack of data. Let me restate my question. What
positive evidence is there for special creation?
SC
>> Why is a bad theory worse than no theory? [clip]
DG
>So what happened when theories proved to be wrong. The scientists just
>kept on passing it as accurate or at some point they went back to the
>laboratory to start all over again. Or maybe they conceded that the
>hypothesis was flawed to start with.
This begs the thorny question of when should theories be discarded? How do
we know when a theory is proven wrong? Almost any theory will have its
detractors who have good reason to reject the theory, but this doesn't
necessarily mean that the theory is wrong. By the same token, having
supporters does not guarantee that a theory is correct.
The history of science is rife with tenaciously held models and great
resistance to new theories even in the face of seemingly convincing contrary
evidence. While this means that the culture of science may often make
errors in supporting wrong theories, it should be kept in mind that to
discard a theory because of the lack of certain data increases the chance of
committing the opposite type of error. It is also important to realize that
a theory is NOT likely to be discarded unless there is a compelling
alternative. In other words, contrary or absent data, by itself, is not
sufficient to cause rejection of a theory. There must be something to
replace it with.
I submit that theology operates by a similar conservation of dogma. This
conservation of dogma was used to rationalize the church's resistance to
heliocentrism. In essence, the church said that it did not want to run the
risk of embracing a new model for the solar system because it could be
wrong. In making this stand, they tacitly agreed to run the risk of holding
to current dogma that could also be wrong. Science can be just as stubborn
as the church.
Dario mentioned above that there are no transitional forms. While I am not
qualified to evaluate this claim, I do know that many believe that
transitional forms have been found, and that this is a point of controversy.
Can you provide any positive evidence for a young earth and special creation
that is not similarly controversial?
>But I keep on hearing of all of these extraordinary claims and lengthy
>dissertations on the same material with little or no new evidence. We just
>went back and brought new angles to make it fit the preconceived model.
>That is why a bad theory is worse that no theory. Because this is bad
>science.
[clip]
>But when discoveries are made that takes the foundation of the tentative
>assumption and fills it with holes, then one should look at the motives of
>the ones trying to hold on the crumbling edifice, while spending countless
>hours and energy trying to demonstrate with words, what they can't find in
>actual occurrences, events or tangible objects.
Do the previous two paragraphs refer to evolution science or creation science?
Cheers,
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________