On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:07:27 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>I wrote
>
>>BH>The point is that the creationist objection that historical events
>>>are nonrepeatible and/or that they are not subject to experimentation
>>>is a potential danger to any branch of science that has to use
>>>indirect observation.
>SJ>This is no "creationist objection" "that historical events are
>>nonrepeatible" and "not subject to experimentation." It is a
>>Darwinist *claim*.
BH>Au contraire. It can be found in the writings of many, if not all, of the
>leaders of the young-earth creationist camp (sorry, I forgot to define
>specifically who I meant). Darwinists may make this claim as well, but the
>difference is that to the YEC's, this objection is a show-stopper: it
>defines origins out of science, while to the Darwinists it's simply an
>obstacle that must be overcome by less direct methods of observation and
>experimentation.
My point was not that YECs don't raise the objection that "that
historical events are nonrepeatible" and "not subject to
experimentation", but that they are just taking up and using a prior
Darwinist claim to that effect.
As for it being "a show-stopper" which "defines origins out of
science", AFAIK YECs usually use it in the sense that *both* creation
and evolution are beyond science, as the following examples show:
"Since evolution has not been observed in nature, and even a species
cannot be produced by the selection of mutants, it is apparent that
evolution is not subject to experimental test. This was admitted by
Dobzhansky when he said:
`These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded
by antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which
they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.' (Dobzhansky T.,
American Scientist, Vol. 45, 1957, p388).
Dobzhansky thus states that the applicability of the experimental
method to evolution is an "impossibility." One reason given by
Dobzhansky and other evolutionists for rejecting creation as a
possible explanation for origins is because it is not subject to the
experimental method. At the same time, however, they consider it
wholly unreasonable for creationists to place the same demand on
evolution theory!" (Gish D.T., "Evolution: The Challenge of the
Fossil Record", 1986, p14)
and:
"Since it is often maintained by evolutionists that evolution is
scientific, whereas creationism is religious, it will be well at this
point to cite several leading evolutionists who have recognized that
evolution also is incapable of being proved. Evolution operates too
slowly for scientific observation. One of the nation's leading
evolutionists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, has admitted:
"The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such
unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by
the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any
human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is
demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for 'proofs' of
evolution which they would magnanimously accept as
satisfactory." (Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology
and Anthropology," American Scientist, Vol. 45, December, 1957,
p388).
(Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985, p6)
If Darwinists claim that creation is beyond science because it is
not subject to observation and repeatable testing, then on their
own criteria, so is Darwinist macroevolution.
BH>Obviously _no_ means of investigation within the sciences can rule
out (or in) intelligent design and governance by a sovereign
creator.
Agreed.
>SJ>If it is a problem for Darwinism's status as a science, then
>>so be it.
BH>Darwinism, as you mean it, isn't science anyway. It's a
>philosophical position. It can guide science (after a fashion), but
>it isn't itself science.
Not all Darwinists would agree with you that "Darwinism...isn't
science" but "a philosophical position". When Popper made his famous
claim that: "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical research programme (Popper K., "Unended Quest", 1976,
p168), Darwinists reacted so indignantly that Popper recanted and
modified his position:
"In 1974 the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper,
proclaimed "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory." That
proclamation won him the outrage of evolutionists worldwide. Four
years later Popper publicly recanted. Since then evolutionists have
quoted his change of mind as the final verdict that their theory is
science. Now they approvingly cite Popper's authority as the
definitive answer to any criticism." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
Message", 1993, p485)
Actually, from what I have seen, Popper did not recant at all, but
cleverly strengthened his "Darwinism is metaphysical" position.
But in any event, I was using "Darwinism" the way Popper does, as
short for the Neo-Darwinist general theory of macroevolution, which is
after all, what we were discussing.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------