I wrote:
>>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.
Moorad replies:
> Scientist seek scientific answers only to scientific questions. There
> are many questions that are not scientific and so science qua science
> has no contribution to make.
Agreed. Questions like "What is good?" fall under this category.
> Some of us do not believe that the question of origins is a purely
> scientific question. If so, then scientists have just as much say on
> it as theologians.
I think such a case could be made for the origin of the universe. And
given the uncertainties of the origin of first life, a case can probably
be made for that as well, though I don't think it would be prudent not to
try to understand abiogenesis from a scientific standpoint. However, I
believe one will have much more difficulty making a similar case for the
origin of the solar system & the earth, as well as the subsequent evolution
of life once it began. This is primarily because life has left a visible
history - Both in the rocks and in the biochemistry of today's organisms.
As for theological contributions, I do not believe that general theologians
have anything that comes close to a better handle on the development of
life than evolutionary biologists (pace George Murphy's recent article
in this thread: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199810/0122.html).
Also, I think we must be careful to define our terms here. You now
mention "origins" rather than "evolution". I don't use those terms
interchangeably -- "Origins" as I've seen it used in this group normally
refers to things like the first origin of life or the origin of the
universe. And from the biological perspective, I see "evolution"
most often associated with the change of life over time (common
descent with modification). Thus, I tend to view these terms as
separable and distinct.
>>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.
>
>A strict evolutionist would consider life to have developed unaided by any
>sort of intelligence. Therefore, if he/she cannot find the development of
>life on earth, he/she will seek it elsewhere.
[...]
A correct but unimportant claim, IMO. I've discussed the case of the
"strict evolutionist" previously:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199810/0080.html
Essentially, it does little good to worry about the opinions of
unconvicible individuals with unyielding metaphysical bents. For example,
we don't say that the concept of a spherical earth is unfalsifiable
simply because some flat-earthers will never accept contrary evidence.
We also don't say that the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth is
unfalsifiable because of a few assorted YECs that happen to think
otherwise. Likewise, it's hard to argue that evolution must be
unfalsifiable simply because there are some that will pursue the
question to unreasonable extremes. I'm not interested in the views of
"extremists"; I'm more interested in rational & reasonable scientists.
I don't think the examples given make your case because: 1) They don't
justify the claim that scientists will generally support the idea
that extraterrestrials deposited life on earth in lieu of an alternate
or supernatural explanation and, 2) They speak nothing about the
unfalsifiability of evolution.
The simple fact is that evolution did not have to become generally
accepted by scientists. There are any number of _possible_ observations
that would have led _most_ scientists to reject common descent with
modification. That these possibilities did not materialize is not the
problem of evolutionary theory. It's the problem for those who dispute
evolution -- and for those carrying unreconciled theological suppositions.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)