>>[NR] Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as
>>>>Darwinism,were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was
>>realized that they weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of
>>philosophy.
>>
>
>[BH] But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?
>
My point is that since the discovery of
1)the pattern of punctuated equilibrium
and
2)several biological examples of irreducible complexity, including that of
the bacteria's flagellum, which requires 50 proteins to form it's rotary
motor--any fewer and you have a broken flagellum, not a reduced function
flagellum
the conditions of Darwin's falsification scenario have been met. Therefore
*gradual* Darwinian macro-evolution should also be taught only in
philosophy classes along with Marxism.
>>[NR]You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if
>>*both* >>a verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.
>>
>>Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
>>scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
>>like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
>>falsification is undefined.
>>
>
>[BH] This is illogical. Even if one granted the intoxication bit of
>rhetoric, it doesn't follow that evolution cannot be falsified.
>
>Many attempts to falsify evolution were made in the past.
>Refer to a history of science book for details.
>
>>[NR] Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
>>
>>"The Cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
>>naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
>>
>>If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
>>science, Punctuated Equilibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
>>
>
>[BH] I'm curious why the switch to PE? Is this an anticipated "naturalistic
>mechanism of choice" to fill in the blank? If so, then this may be
>a source of confusion. PE itself is not a mechanism but a pattern.
>Mechanisms would be proposed in an attempt to explain this pattern.
>The way to test PE is just to go and look for the pattern. If its
>not there then PE has been falsified.
>
Punctuated Equilibrium *is* a pattern. But to date there is not even one
proposal for a testable mechanism that could have caused the PE pattern.
So without a testable mechanism, PE, and the macro-evolution it implies,
does not qualify as science. Give me a testable mechanism by which the PE
pattern occurred (please include the falsification scenario) and then we
can agree that macro-evolution is part of science.
Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL
Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL