Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU) wrote:
[...Bill Hamilton's comments deleted...]
> My contention is that a scientist who considers the theory of evolution
> more than a working scientific hypothesis would always seek a scientific
> answer to the question of origins. I do not know under what conditions
> such a scientist would consider the question of origins not a scientific
> question.
It strikes me that searching for "scientific" answers is something that
most scientists do. That's why I don't understand this statement. We
could replace "evolution" and "origins" with "gravity", "the germ theory
of disease" or, "cell physiology" in the paragraph above and still have
a sensible statement. I do not believe that the criteria presented here
can separate research about evolution from other scientific pursuits.
As to Moorad's example of research into "astrobiology": I don't follow
the reasoning for presenting that particular blurb. It is one thing to
suppose that life arose and evolved elsewhere in the universe. Granted,
we've got only one data set to examine at this point and exobiolology
(which is what "astrobiology" used to be called) has nothing to study.
SETI is a fishing expedition, but it is not out of line from the same
style of research expeditions that scientists have always pursued.
However, this is far cry from the proposal that some extraterrestrial agent
has deposited organisms like dairy cattle or chipmunks (or other creatures)
on Earth and on a somewhat regular basis. I recall that the latter case
is more like the one Moorad originally proposed that "evolutionists" would
fall to.
Essentially, I don't feel the case has yet been made by Moorad that
"evolution is unfalsifiable." That was the original claim that
triggered many of these posts.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)