Richard Wein wrote:
>It's an unfortunate fact that there is no rigorous definition of the
>scientific method available.
It would be unfortunate if there were rigorous definition of how scientists
must proceed. Breakthroughs occur through luck and the willingness to
think new things.
>Many philosophers of science have struggled with this issue, but with
>limited success.
A theologian is not a failure because he doesn't define or prove anything;
like the philosopher of science, his calling is to ruminate about general
principles. If he enjoys it and people enjoy reading him, and he can make
a career out of it, he is a success.
Philosophy of science is not itself a scientific activity. When philosophy
is looked to to settle scientific questions, this only shows that the science
is in trouble.
>Since we know that speciation occurs, and the fossil record shows patterns
>of small changes building up into larger changes over long periods of time,
>the onus is on anti-evolutionists to show that some barrier exists which
>prevents small changes from building up in this way.
There are no final logical barriers in evolutionary biology. The DNA in
my gametes could get scrambled by some trauma such that my offspring
are flying dragons with giant brains. So the arguments are simply about
what is most likely to have occurred. It seems unlikely to me that the
microevolution we can observe is the mechanism that put together
the complex organisms that appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata.
Both the time factor and the irreducible-complexity factor weigh heavily
against this. Irreducible complexity is a good criticism of microevolution;
and thus, for those who assume evolution, irreducible complexity is a
good argument for macroevolution.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 13:34:16 EDT