>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.
>
Thanks for the Gish quote that shows this. I have seen the Dobzhansky
quote before, but somehow it had never occurred to me that the creationist
cavils about the inability to conduct repeatible experiments with
historical data were simply a response to what the evolutionists admit.
However, I do believe there is a legitimate issue here: the response to the
difficulty. The response of evolutionists has been to look for means other
than observing the entire history of evolutionary development to study
evolution. Some of the means are paleontology, population genetics and
field studies of observable variations.
The young-earth creationist response has been to say, "No, none of that is
valid." While the evolutionists may be mistaken in some -- perhaps many or
even most -- of their conclusions, I think their approach is more likely to
advance the state of human empirical knowledge.
Moreover I don't see any threat to Christianity in the evolutionist
approach. It means Christians have to be vigilant to point out when
conclusions that aren't scientifically supportable are masqueraded as fact,
but if Christians are unwilling to do that, we will have many problems
before the Lord returns. (Many more than necessary, anyway)
>Not all Darwinists would agree with you that "Darwinism...isn't
>science" but "a philosophical position".
I'm sure they wouldn't. I was being a bit careless in my definitions,
although I did try to qualify things by saying "Darwinism as _you_ define it"
>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.
I'd better read what Popper said -- before and after -- before I comment.
Long ago on talk.origins I said that I thought macroevolution was a
reasonable inference from the fossil record and population genetics. A
reasonable inference is different from a fact, of course, and I do think
those who assert that it's a fact are crossing the line from science to
metaphysical research program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Bill Hamilton
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center
Warren, MI