>>"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
>
>>and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not
>testable.
billwald@juno.com wrote:
>Neither macro evolution nor Creationism are testable. Macro evolution is
>not testable because any test must span many generations. Creationism is
>not testable because Creationist theology teaches that God stopped
>creating on the 6th day thus any test is ipso facto heretical. Micro
>evolution has been observed.
macroevolution is testable in the sense that you can say "if evolution is
true then X should be true" and then go looking for X. I'm pretty sure all
historical sciences "test" things that way. That's how they found the city
of Troy. That's also how they found the submerged island between the
Galapagos and South America. The Galapagos islands aren't old enough for
those famous finches to have evolved there. There had to be a
"stepping-stone" island.
>>Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety.
>
>Creationism and Darwinism purport to describe historical events. History
>is descriptive, not predictive. For example, global warming vs. comming
>ice age. Both sides use the same historical data to make opposite
>conclusions.
Well, no. Creationists tend to ignore unfavorable data that doesn't fit the
desired conclusion. However, the "predictive" quality of evolution isn't
about predicting the future. It's about predicting what makes sense. On
Madagascar there is a flower with an extremely deep throat. Darwin
predicted that some kind of insect with an extremely long proboscus would
be needed to pollinate such a flower. Just such an insect was eventually
found.
>>PD: No, of course not. But the question is would we expect to find any
>>intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no.
>
>Seems to me that most Creationists equate evolution with social
>Darwinism.
no kidding. Social "Darwinism" is actually the exact *opposite* of real
Darwinism. Social Darwinism ignores the fact that our species uses
sociability to survive, hinted at by the old adage "safety in numbers." It
also misunderstands the basic necessity of evolution--and therefore
Darwinism--which is variation. The Nazis made a stringent attempt to limit
variation in their population and therefore evolutionarily speaking they
were shooting themselves in the foot. The most viable population has the
greatest variability.
>There is no evidence that abstract intelligence makes for biological
>fitness. Just the opposite.
there's something to be said for a facility in solving problems, but I
think you are basically right.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 13 2000 - 13:00:05 EDT