Re: Fw: Scientific theory

But Randy, I'm not quite in accord with what you've said here, but for
sure that last sentence just doesn't seem to be the case. The
creationist discussions concerning geology, for instance, are rife with
falsification arguments. Absence of evidence is cited as falsification.
Exceptions to the generally found ordering of sediment/fossil layers
comprise falsfications. The discussions of the Grand Canyon geologic
structures may be where it is most evident [try googling falsification
and "Grand Canyon"], but there are certainly many others. The problem is
what constitutes falsification to one person is a simple anomaly to
another, the difference being how one regards the evidence that is the
object of falsification.
JimA

Randy Isaac wrote:

> I fully agree, Don. That's why I focused on "falsifiability" rather
> than "proofs" or "verifiability". In science falsifiability is
> usually the operative word. Neither test will prove evolution--that
> comes in growing acceptance based on the combination of many types of
> evidence and absence of falsification. In these tests,
> a counterexample would falsify evolution. In contrast, a creationist
> who rationalizes the results in the manner you indicate, would
> not count a negative result as a falsification.
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Winterstein <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> To: asa <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Randy Isaac
> <mailto:rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Scientific theory
>
> Randy Isaac wrote:
>
> "I think that out of a number of tests [of the theory of evolution],
> there are two that I find striking:
> 1) the theory of common descent predicts that all living organisms
> have DNA based on the same four, and only these four, nucleotides.
> 2) it also predicts that all naturally occurring DNA will have the
> same (left-handed as it turns out for unknown reasons) chirality."
>
> I'm going back to this because, if you use these arguments as
> significant "proofs" of the theory of evolution, you at least need to
> be aware of the questions you are begging. Since no one with more
> competence in the field has addressed this, I take on the
> responsibility.
>
> Test 1 (four nucleotides) would be meaningless unless DNA
> could function with different nucleotides than the known four. But
> nobody knows this. Given all the churning of genetic codes that must
> have gone on over the billions of years, it would be surprising if no
> instances of different nucleotides ever occurred. If they
> haven't, a likely implication is that DNA can't function with
> different nucleotides. If so, DNA of all organisms would have the
> four nucleotides whether or not all organisms had a common origin.
>
> The chirality result (Test 2) is harder to argue against on this
> basis. However, if life originated only a few times, chances of
> starting with the same handedness in every case would be pretty good,
> so handedness still would not necessarily imply a common origin.
>
> These predictions address the question of whether all life had a
> common origin. But if we extend the question into the theological
> realm, which we like to do, then satisfaction of neither prediction is
> necessarily of any value: For example, a creationist who believed
> that different life forms were specially created at different times
> could say that (1) God determined beforehand that DNA with the four
> nucleotides was the preferred solution and (2) God likes left-handed
> rotations.
>
> I claim it's difficult or impossible to make a good case for evolution
> purely on the basis of DNA. Without the fossil evidence, such
> arguments would merely generate breeze. They have limited merit
> because there is fossil evidence.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Isaac <mailto:rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>
> To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Scientific theory
>
> "Not to argue with you, Randy, as I believe in evolution in a
> Christian
> context, but can you discuss a test of the theory of evolution
> which it
> has passed, thus demonstrating for all to see that it has been
> scientfically proven?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Bill Yates"
>
> I think that out of a number of tests, there are two that I find
> striking:
>
> 1) the theory of common descent predicts that all living organisms
> have DNA based on the same four, and only these four, nucleotides.
> 2) it also predicts that all naturally occurring DNA will have the
> same (left-handed as it turns out for unknown reasons) chirality.
>
> To my knowledge, no instance has been found that violates either
> one of these. And I don't know of any other theory of origins
> that would make the same definitive prediction, though one might
> rationalize why it should be so. No, Darwin didn't know about DNA
> structure so this prediction came later, but there's an incredible
> amount of data that's been collected since DNA was discovered and
> it all seems to fit--so far.
>
> I'm not saying whether I believe in evolution or not. But let's
> not reject it on the grounds that it isn't scientific or that it
> isn't testable.
>
> Randy
>
Received on Mon Dec 13 15:54:43 2004