Hi again Berthajean ... and let me say that while not particularly
caught up in certain of your many strings... I do always find thoughts
in each of your posts that makes 'lurking' them more than worth while.
Particularly I admire the courteous, thoughtful manner in which you
always express yourself ... even (particularly) when in disagreement or
responding to dubious mischaracterizations of your positions.
Indeed, this is the genius of science ... scientists do not need to get
caught up in words or emotions, they simply ask how the contrary
position can be duplicated for verification. If such information is not
forthcoming, the claim immediately loses the credibility of 'science'
and reverts to the status of philosophical speculation. A recent
example being the recent furor over cold-fusion. There was no
argument. Others simply asked for verifiable evidence ... when this was
not forthcoming the claim was immediately repudiated as interesting
speculation (but not empirical science) and the burden of proof placed
squarely on those who continue to insist claim to be true.
This is the classic manner in which science is supposed to work. And
while it works well in the physical (hard) sciences (as above), folks
"believing" the concept of evolution to be true, and professing it to be
scientifically established, somehow feel they need not live up to these
classic accepted standards. Evolution, being an historical (soft)
science, does not (cannot) meet the requirements of empirical science as
so frequently asserted.
The qualifying criteria of empirical science ( confirmable reliability,
observable by the five senses, physical experiments, etc.) are
admittedly rigorous. But they are the best way discernible to man by
which personal bias and human emotion can be minimized. To the extent
historical sciences (evolution, particularly) do not follow this
"testability" standard, the least that can be expected (demanded) is a
description of precisely what criteria they substitute, and which has to
be met, for an evolutionary statement or conclusion to properly qualify
as 'scientific'.
While leading evolutionary gurus readily acknowledge the inability to
adhere to the "testability" criteria of empirical science, this word
apparently hasn't filtered down to the 'faithful'. Even more
disappointing (even anti-scientific) is their failure to share precisely
WHAT alternate criteria they do apply, to what degree it minimizes bias
and emotion in conclusions and their estimate of the relative level of
compelling certainty (compared to physical demonstration) meeting such
criteria will provide.
Actually, such uncertainty ... and the inability to provide even a
single example of empirical evidence establishing biological
macro-evolution ... has to be frustrating. And the necessity to depend
upon 'words' (head experiments), rather than 'examples' (physical
experiments), can only compound their anxiety.
If the more dogmatic evolutionists could only bring themselves to focus
on the actual, available, demonstrable, scientific 'facts' ... they
would not have to fall back on passion and dubious semantics to
emotionally defend their favored (philosophical, religious) position.
There is nothing wrong in science to say "I don't know." There is
something wrong in science to claim to "know" something without being
willing (or able) to define the proof-method used and provide the
evidence establishing successful fulfillment of the test-criteria
applied.
That the great majority of ALL disagreement in the on-going
creation/evolution controversy is based more on careless (sloppy,
ambiguous, deceptive) semantics than on any testable science is well
reflected in the following approach to language by a well respected
evolutionist:
"The most basic facts in science are the 'brute, sensory facts' from
perceptions which are shared and on which we agree. ...When biologists
say that 'evolution is a fact', I think they mean that they accept the
following statement so firmly that they considers it to be as true as
any basic sensory fact: Each species arose from another species that
preceded it in time, and higher taxa arose by a continuation of the
speciation processes. The term fact as commonly applied to such
statements signifies not the kind of content in the statements but,
rather, the strength of our acceptance of the statements. So, if we are
willing to accept a broad definition of fact, biologists are correct in
saying that '[evolution is a fact.'" Dr. Ralph Lewis, Prof. Emeritus
Biology, MSU, East Lansing, MI; CREATION-EVOLUTION JOURNAL: No. XXII;
Pg. 34; 1988.
No wonder we can't make sense out of each others statements! We never
know for sure what an evolutionist really means when he uses a word.
DAB
P.S. I'm just beginning to organize a few thoughts as to how one might
best distinguish between 'natural' and 'intelligent' designs (patterns,
organization, complexity, etc.). Hope to get this out shortly.
dabradbury@mediaone.net (7/14/00)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 14 2000 - 15:03:52 EDT