At 03:02 PM 7/14/00 -0400, David wrote:
[...]
>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'.
First I'm curious how ID would fare better. It has to deal with the same
evidence, which is historical.
Second, I'm curious whether you think the orbital period of Pluto is an
established scientific fact.
>While leading evolutionary gurus readily acknowledge the inability to
>adhere to the "testability" criteria of empirical science,
Can you give the names of these gurus and where they acknowledge this?
Also, are you referring to Popper
when you mention the testability criteria? In any event, Popper's name is
most often associated with
testable or falsifiable. Thus I thought I would point out that Popper
disagrees with you:
"...The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested,
and so has
the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved
from a few primitive
unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism."
-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4,
1978, pp. 339-355
>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, you'll find a wealth of different opinions on this among
physicists. If you really have a complaint
here then recognize it applies to all science.
>
>
>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.
Well, I believe there is a wealth of physical evidence that macroevolution
occurred. But this will depend on
precisely what one means by macroevolution. What do you mean by this term?
>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.
On the contrary, I've found most authors quite willing to define terms
carefully.
>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.
Look forward to seeing it.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 14 2000 - 17:01:47 EDT