Re: Empirical evidence for evolution?

From: David Bradbury (dabradbury@mediaone.net)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2000 - 21:30:56 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: The Question of Starting Point Premises, and the Burden of Proof for Non-Naturalism"

    "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:

    > Dear David,
    >
    > You wrote:
    >
    > > I here apologize for deviating somewhat from your original
    > philosophical string, but your mention that "the scientific concept
    > of evolutionary development [is] empirically warranted'' is so much on
    > target with a related interest of my own that I hope you might allow
    > this intrusion.
    >
    > > Namely, I have for a number of years been seeking examples of
    > verifiable 'empirical' evidence establishing biological evolution as
    > 'scientific' ... but with little (no) success. Upon reading your
    > above statement it appears you may be aware of such evidence. Please
    > do briefly describe specific examples you feel properly qualifies as
    > empirical evidence confirming the reality of (macro) evolution to
    > assist me in my search.

    Van Till replies:

    > The whole of the body of scientific literature, along with the
    > evaluation of that literature by persons whose training and experience
    > qualifies them to do that evaluation, provides the warrant of which I
    > speak.

    > If you demand a short list of 'verifiable' examples--isolated from
    > that
    > whole body of scientific literature and its evaluation by the
    > professional scientific community--that will suffice to convince a
    > person who begins with a skeptical attitude, then you will probably be
    > disappointed. It would be something like saying to a forest ranger, "I
    > doubt that forests exist, but show me a tree that proves the existence
    > of the forest and I'll believe in the existence of the forest." In
    > reality, you just have to see a major portion of forest in order to
    > gain a sense of what a forest is.
    >
    > Following is a list of some of my publications if you are interested
    > in
    > seeing more of my approach and what leads me to it. (List not shown
    > for brevity...DAB)
    >
    > Cordially,
    >
    > Howard Van Till
    >
    >

    Dear Dr. Van Till,

    Thanks for your prompt reply of 6/29 above ... however, as one
    attempting to validate the observation that over 90% of ALL disagreement
    in the creation/evolution dichotomy is traceable more to semantics
    (imprecise, careless use of language) than to actual scientific
    differences ... I am disappointed by your choice (or inability?) not to
    simply cite even one specific example of "empirical" evidence as
    required to properly validate the application of this term to evolution.

    While I admire the semantic picture drawn by your 'tree' and 'forest'
    analogy, its really not all that appropriate. Indeed, on quick reading,
    it appears more misleading than informative. Would it not be a better
    fit to identify the skeptic as one well acquainted with 'trees' (from
    prior experience and textbook definitions), finding himself in the
    middle of a horizon to horizon grassland and being informed by a
    resident 'ranger' that he was surrounded by a 'forest'. Under these
    conditions, is it understandable and appropriate for him to ask the
    'ranger' to please point out an example of what he considers a 'tree'?

    Dr. Van Till, I do have a science degree (BSME, Univ. of Mich. '49) ...
    and after 40 years of focused attention, I am nominally acquainted with
    the scientific literature in this field. Therein I find numerous
    expressions of sincere "belief", authoritative "assertions",
    unverifiable "conclusions" , questionable "speculations", unbounded
    "extrapolations", interesting "conjecture" and colorful "Just-So
    stories". All presented in such context as to imply, if not out rightly
    state, that these non-empirical positions somehow establish the concept
    of 'evolution' to the same level of relative certainty normally (and
    properly) reserved for "empirical" science. But nowhere, even upon
    request, can I find an author willing to identify any example of
    empirical evidence meeting the defining criteria universally set forth
    in undergraduate science curriculae.

     This lack of empirical (physical verification, limited to the five
    senses ... real world experiments, NOT mental experiments) support for
    evolution is no secret amongst knowledgeable evolutionary believers.
    Indeed, This is well known and often heatedly discussed in many of the
    smaller circulation more specialized technical journals. But it is
    infrequently mentioned, if not purposely concealed or obscured, in the
    undergraduate classroom and with the public at large. Fortunately, such
    obfuscation is being increasingly challenged as folks increasingly seek
    to understand the specific scientific proof methods upon which various
    evolutionary claims are based.

    Confronted by such demands, and some apparently on their own convinced
    the time has come to be more straightforward as to proof methods
    actually applied, authors are beginning to open this up to a wider
    audience. The following excerpts from respected evolutionary authors in
    semi-popular publications is a hopeful sign. They acknowledge (in
    guarded acadamese) that some (many, most, or all?) evolutionary concepts
    are outside classic "empirical" science. They are even coining new names
    for their proposed alternatives to "empirical" science (see 'historical
    narrative' science and 'hypothetico-deductive' or 'HD' science below).
    Unfortunately, at this early stage evolutionists are still most hesitant
    in describing any alternative (lesser, non-empirical) proof-establishing
    criteria they consider sufficient to identify "science" in their new
    method. Indeed, it is even doubtful that they have determined such
    criteria (beyond majority-consensus belief of which they understandably
    are not too proud.) Adding to their quandary is that once this
    non-empirical (non-physical, mentally determined) criteria is made
    public, they will have to apply the same lesser standards to
    alternative, non-evolutionary explanations qualifying them equally as
    science. First we read:

    "However, if we enlarge the methodology of science so as to include
    historical narratives, we can often explain unique events rather
    satisfactorily, and sometimes even make testable predictions." by Dr.
    Ernst Mayr, NATURAL HISTORY, May 1997, Pgs. 8-12.

    Here Dr. Mayr in his candid discussion of evolution recognizes the need
    to 'enlarge' (go beyond) the present 'methodology' of science ... which
    most evolutionary authors describe as 'experimental verification'. His
    'improvement' would be to grant equal certainty to 'historical
    narratives'. I've long felt that accepting empirically untestable
    'historical narratives' (the Bible, for instance) better constituted
    religion than science. But then again, evolution, in its trusting
    belief in untestable concepts involving origin, purpose or destiny of
    life IS in many ways a religion, so we may as well admit it.

    That evolution is less rigorous in its methodology than physical
    (empirical) science is often characterized with a bit of disdain by
    those in the 'hard' sciences.

    "Traditionally one encountered statements, both in the literature of
    physical sciences and in philosophy, that the physical sciences obey
    strictly deterministic laws, while biology, as J. Herschel said of
    evolutionary biology, 'obeyed the law of higgledy-piggledly.'" Dr. J.
    Herschel as quoted by Dr. Mayr in his chapter in EVOLUTION AT A
    CROSSROADS; Compiled by Depew & Webster; MIT Press; 1987; Pg. 48.

    The inability of evolution to qualify as 'empirical' science is
    discussed at considerable length in this 1998 publication: In personal
    correspondence with Dr. Lewis I found him to be as cordial and
    intellectually honest as he is dedicated to evolutionary belief. This
    is well apparent in his unique (amongst evolutionists) willingness to
    properly characterize the non-empirical status of evolution.

    "During the 50 year life of The American Biology Teacher there has been
    a change in the general view of method in biological science. A brief
    look at this change and its possible consequences for biology education
    may interest those who are searching for ways to improve education at
    the high school and college levels. The change was from descriptive
    biology to hypothetico-deductive biology, that is to theoretical
    biology." by Dr. Ralph Lewis, Prof. Emeritus, M.S.U., East Lansing, MI,
    in "Biology: A Hypothetico-Deductive Science", published in THE AMERICAN
    BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 50, No.6, Sep't., 1998.

    When I sat down to prepare this reply I really didn't expect to get
    quite this involved ... and apologize should you consider it overlong.
    But I do want to add one more reference ... the one that convinced me to
    focus on this definition kick several years back.

    "An important operational rule is that each word in a scientific
    statement must carry exactly the same meaning to all scientists, at
    least to all who practice in a given field or area of science. This
    rule requires that all words be precisely defined. Scientists must be
    very fussy about definitions, even if that seems painful to others." Dr.
    A. N. Strahler; SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION/CREATION
    CONTROVERSY; Prometheus Press; 1987; Pg. 6.

    Chow!

    dabradbury@mediaone.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 21:32:28 EDT