While I agree with Glenn that there is a valid scientific theory of
evolution (albeit with many questions as yet unanswered), I want to point
out that Moorad and Glenn are implicitly using two different criteria for
deciding whether evolution is science.
Moorad is suggesting that there are objective criteria by which evolution
theory can be classified as science or nonscience. I tend to agree that
there are objective criteria by which a discipline can be classified as
science or nonscience. But applying those criteria to a large field whose
supporters range from people doing lab and field work to understand the
details to people who propose grand theories and finally to popularizers,
some of whom would not be accepted as trustworthy expounders by mainstream
workers would be extremely difficult.
Glenn's comment OTOH implies that we can classify evolution as science
because a good many scientists do. I agree that most scientists accept a
view because they have become convinced it is a rational interpretation of
the available data, and it makes predictions worth pursuing in research,
not because it suits some agenda. But I'm uncomfortable about using a poll
to decide that something is science.
Bill Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems MC 480-106-390
GM R&D Center
30500 Mound Road
Warren, MI
hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com / whamilto@mich.com (home)