Re: Fw: Scientific theory

Ah so! Thanks - JimA

Randy Isaac wrote:

> 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 <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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 20:58:08 2004