Re: Fw: Scientific theory

Jim,
    Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. My paragraph was not intended to be a general comment or to be of broad applicability. It was specifically intended to address the two tests I had cited as potential falsifiability of common descent, namely universality of the 4 nucleotide bases and identical chirality of all DNA. In those cases, theories of origin of species other than common descent, whether it be creation ex nihilo, spontaneous generation, or alien sources, do not predict universality. It can be rationalized (a wise Designer uses a good building block everywhere, lack of viability of other nucleotides, etc.) but a counterexample would not be a falsification.

    As for the more general case, it is a very important aspect of science to understand when negative results are significant and when they aren't, as well as to understand when counterexamples are anomalies and when they are evidence of falsification. I won't try to address that here except to comment on your allusion to Grand Canyon geologic structures. It would indeed constitute falsification of the theory of evolution if it were confirmed that a species existed prior to its ancestral species. The reason that I don't find this a very useful example of falsifiability is that there are too many factors that can cause spurious results. It is often difficult or impossible to resolve all possible perturbations. Given the vast preponderance of examples of sequential fossils of species, the counterexamples are considered anomalies rather than evidence of falsification.

    Randy

----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Armstrong
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:52 PM
  Subject: 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
Received on Mon Dec 13 20:24:57 2004