Thanks for your response to my posting of 3/3/99.
Concerning falsifiability, let me first say that the nub of the matter
is not that evolution hasn't yet been falsified, but rather that it is
incapable of ever being falsified. A number of people seem to have
missed the point here. For example,
(1) In your initial response to Neal you stated "Many attempts to
falsify evolution were made in the past."
(2) Jonathan wrote, "We must be very careful with falsification." Then,
citing three examples, he overlooks the fact that Newton's theory of
gravitation is clearly 'scientific' because it is manifestly
falsifiable; on the other hand, his geological scenario is not, for it -
like evolution itself - involves conjectures about distant historical
events.
(3) Paraphrasing Pim, "PE does not falsify Darwinism...neither does
irreducible complexity."
(4) Cliff believes that "...just because something happened long ago
does not mean it is in principle not verifiable or falsifiable." I
disagree.
(5) In Tim's view, "(PE) does not appear to imply any falsification of
Darwin's scenario...(nor does) irreducible complexity."
(6) Gary, quoting Chalmers (who is referring to bona fide scientific
theories, presumably), maintains, "it is not actually possible to
falsify anything with 100% certainty."
Concerning Neal's original statement, "Generally evolution education
...never even defines what the falsification scenario looks like.": this
is not because it has no wish to rock the Darwinian boat, but because
such a requirement makes an impossible demand of a metaphysical concept.
Thank you for the quotation from Popper's "Natural Selection and the
Emergence of Mind". However, in agreeing evolution to be a valid
scientific theory, Popper signally failed to apply the principles that
he himself had formulated in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'. Why
was this? After all, the world of science had already espoused the ideas
expressed in this book - as witnessed, for example, by Professor Ian
Stewart in 'Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos' (Blackwell,
1989). He writes: "To count as scientific, a theory in principle must be
falsifiable...The more a theory fails to be falsified when confronted by
experiment, the more likely it is to be true..." (p.174). When I wrote
to him some years ago suggesting that the Theory of Evolution was
unfalsifiable and therefore, in his own words, unscientific, our
correspondence abruply ceased. Clearly, once the penny drops, an
alternative criterion for categorizing theories is urgently sought by
evolutionists. This, of course, has now been found in the notion of
'scientific consensus' - strict objectivity being rejected in favour of
corporate subjectivity! I suggest that both Popper and Kuhn have
betrayed their principles in going along with this charade. They are
complicit in allowing a manifestly reasonable and objective criterion to
be sacrificed on the altar of the god evolution!
I was very interested to read Bill Payne's recent contribution,
"Professing to be wise, they became fools...", particularly where
Christian No.2 asks his evolutionist Professor, "Have you ever observed
evolution with your own eyes, sir?...Since no one has ever observed the
process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is
an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you
now not a scientist, but a priest?" Let's face it: that really is the
truth of the matter, isn't it? Should any Christian or Jew respect the
majority view of the scientific community in respect of a matter which
so clearly undermines biblical teaching? And particularly when we see in
our mind's eye a notice on most laboratory doors to the effect, "God,
keep out! We're hell bent on discovering how it was all done without
you!" The Scriptures speak plainly on these matters: man is essentially
an enemy of his Creator; he is 'deceitful above all things' and
'desperately wicked' (Jer.17:9). In the words of Christian No.2, "I
would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is
probably one of the most observable phenomena going." Isn't that right?
We read in 1Kings 18, verse 21, "And Elijah came unto all the people,
and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God,
follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him
not a word."
With regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm