On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 20:25:18 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>Indeed, according to Popper (and Patterson?), macroevolution is
>>>>not even science, but is really history:
>>BH>Where has Popper said that macroevolution is not science?
[...]
>>Patterson doesn't given any references, but I found this is by
>>Lewontin:
>>
>>"Popper himself, in The Poverty of Historicism, singles out
>>evolutionary theory for an attack. "Can there be a law of
>>evolution?" "No, the search for the law of the 'unvarying order' in
>>evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of scientific
>>method...". By this, Popper means only that the history of living
>>organisms and their transformations on Earth -are a specific
>>sequence of unique events, no different from, say, the history of
>>England. Since it is a unique sequence, no generalities can be
>>constructed about it." (Lewontin R.C., ", Nature, Vol. 236, March
>>24, 1972, p181).
BH>I was really amazed by the last sentence of the above quote.
>No generalities can be constructed? Really? But Lewontin
>goes on to say "But this aspect of the Popperian objection
>to biology's most comprehensive system of knowledge is
>easy to cope with, ...".
I found Lewontin's answer to Popper a bit half-hearted, and I am not
sure from the article that Lewontin really disagrees with Popper.
Besides, it is cold comfort to Darwinists that *some* generalities
can be drawn from history-no doubt some generalities can be drawn
from the history of England, but it is not taught as science. From
what I understand, historians have given up trying to find a science
of history.
>>SJ>It is on the next page of "Unended Quest" that Popper's most
>>quoted words occur:
>>
>>"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
>>scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible
>>framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper K., "Unended
>>Quest", 1982 reprint, p168).
BH>Hopefully whoever quotes this is aware that Popper changed
>his mind.
This is often claimed by evolutionists, but while Popper did
appear to modify his claims somewhat to appease indignant Darwinists,
he never retracted his core claim that "Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme".
Popper first made his claim in *1974*, and issued his `recantation'
in 1980, yet the edition I was quoting from was revised in *1982*
after revisions in 1976 and 1978. I think it is safe to say that
if an author allows words to stand despite intense criticism
through *three* editions over the space of 8 years, then he
stands by them!
[...]
BH>However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the
>theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is
>difficult to test. There are some tests, even some
>experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous
>phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe
>natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were.
>Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural
>selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of
>otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
"...really severe tests of the theory of natural selection
are hard to come by. This is supposed to represent a changing
of Poppers mind? It doesn't sounds much different from "Darwinism
is not a testable scientific theory...". Indeed it sounds more
like damming with faint praise!
BH>The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
>to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
>great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology
>like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable;
>nor has it any explanatory power.
I suspect that Popper was cleverly getting even with his
Darwinist critics, by continuing his criticisms in the guise
of a recantation!
BH>It is therefore most
>surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
>Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way
>that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that
>leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H.
>Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in
>other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to
>be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place
>to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since
>the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero,
>something must be wrong here.
Yes indeed!
BH>Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great
>Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord
>Simpson; and others.
That "great Darwinists" like "Fisher", "Haldane", and "Simpson"
have trouble formulating the theory of natural selection without
making it a tautology, is good prima facie evidence that it *is*
a tautology.
BH>I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits.
>Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past
>described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried
>to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable
>(as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest.
So Popper in this "recantation" admits that the theory of natural
seelction is not "almost tautological", but is in fact "a tautology"!
How he must have laughed as he wrote this!
BH>My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most
>successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed
>problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect
>of an acceptable solution of these problems.
Note "*doctrine* of natural selection"! It's no longer a "theory"!
And it still is a "metaphysical research programme"!
BH>I still believe that natural selection works this way as a
>research programme.
And again. It is a "research programme".
BH>Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about
>the testability and logical status of the theory of natural
>selection;
Popper is just pulling Darwinist's legs and they don't even
notice! He hasn't retracted anything what he said about
"the testability and logical status of the theory of natural
selection". Indeed, he has confirmed that "really severe tests
of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by" (read
"impossible"). And as for "logical status" it has slipped
further from "almost tautological" to "a tautology".
BH>and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a
>recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little
>to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
>-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
>_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
What a wit! Indeed Popper's "recantation" has contribute "to the
understanding of the status of natural selection", ie. that it
"is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
programme"!
BH>With respect to the claim that macroevolution is not science
>(according to Popper), consider the following sentence from
>the above quote:
>
>#"The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been
>#well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which
>#says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few
>#primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one
>#single organism." -- Popper
That "all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular
organisms, possibly even from one single organism" is a necessary but
not sufficient test of *Darwinism*. *I* am a creationist and I have no
problem believing in common descent and nor does Mike Behe. As
Denton points out, common descent is "compatible with almost any
philosophy of nature", including some forms of creationism:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some
kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about how
the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the
causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even
creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any
significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy
of nature." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",
1985, pp154-155)
In fact Darwin in the Origin pointed out that it was not enough for
"a naturalist" to believe that "species...had descended...from other
species", but it must be "shown *how* the...species...have been
modified":
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world
have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C., "The
Origin of Species", [1872], 6th edition, Everyman's Library, p18)
BH>It is also instructive to note why Popper came to his
>former view that natural selection was "almost tautological".
>He was "Influenced by what these authorities say..."
Since Popper was not a biologist, like the rest of us, he had no
alternative but to be "Influenced by what these authorities say".
What do you expect him to do-sail around the world for several years
making his own observations?
But as a *philosopher* Popper was well qualified to subject Darwinist
reasoning to established canons of logic, and to conclude that not
only was the Darwinist theory of natural selection "almost tautological"
but in fact it *was* "a tautology"!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------