>There is nothing to "flesh out". The simple fact is that Darwinism would
>not be falsified if we found another Earth-like planet with no life, or
only
>primitive life on it, or even advanced life on it with no human-like
life.
Philosophically neither Darwinism nor creationism can be falsified.
Negatives can't be proven.
For all we know God created the physical universe and divided it into two
experiments. In one half
he he is conducting an evolutionary experiment and in the other half he
seeded a planet with mature soil and creatures. No way to know which half
we are in unless God updates Genesis by a direct communication.
>Therefore Darwinism cannot predict the origin and development of life on
>Earth at *any* level, including the emergence of humans.
May be true but doesn't logically follow the preceding paragraph.
> What Tedd is again trying to do here is shift the burden of proof.
Interesting word, "proof." Has lots of meanings which mush together.
Strictly speaking it primarially refers to formal mathematical
demonstrations which may or may not have an application in the physical
world. Science doesn't provide proofs, it collects and analyzes data.
So-called "laws of nature" would better be called "current best guess."
Nobel Prizes are won by refuting a current best guess. Then there is the
legal term as in "burden of proof" which is closer related to presenting
data than making mathematical demonstrations.
billwald@juno.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 16 2000 - 00:07:12 EDT