<<Interesting comments with which I agree. But, if I remember
correctly, the reason Glenn brought this up was due to
the insistence by someone (forget who) that successful
scientific theories need to have mechanisms. Interestingly
enough, this is the same criticism applied to Newton. Recall
Leibniz' infamous accusation that Newton was trying to
introduce occult qualities into science. Newton had no
mechanism nor would he feign one: "Hypothesis non fingo".
But Newton won because his law made sense of a wide range
of phenomena.>>
Brian,
I was the one that insisted that "science does not consider a puzzle or
problem solved until a _mechanism_ is identified that accounts for the
phenomenon." I hold to that. I am talking about _understanding_ a
phenomenon, not whether a law is successful. I agree that laws of gravity are
successful because they make sense of a wide range of phenomena, as you say.
But there is still a drive to understand the phenomenon, to get at the
mechanism behind it. Else why are some researchers still trying to find
gravity waves?
<<Many have viewed Darwin's theory as being highly successful
for the same reason. It makes sense of a wide range of
phenomena. In view of Newton, this would seem justified
even if a detailed understanding of the mechanisms is not
known.
>>
To compare Darwin's "theory" with Newton's laws of gravity or laws of motion
is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. Where is the mathematics underlying Darwinian
theory? Where are the precise predictions that are at all comparable to what
can be made from Newton's laws?
Darwin had an important concept, but hardly a theory. There is enough wiggle
room and stretch in it, that no matter what observations one brings to it, an
evolutionist can assert, 'It's consistent with the Darwin's theory.'"
Best regards,
Bob