KW
>> What I said was that the
>> DATA or the EVIDENCE is linked with speculative and imaginative STORIES.
>> These are fantasies, and some of the best men in paleontology and other
>> fields of science related to this issue readily admit it!
LE
>*All* scientific theories, without exception, are what you call
>"speculative and imaginative STORIES" because all theories go beyond the
>evidence for them.
(snip)
>You may indeed be right in claiming that the story (theory) of evolution
>has too many gaps, leaps, and speculations. But gaps, leaps, and
>speculations *in themselves* are not evidence of non-scientificness or
>speciousness because *all* theories and stories have them.
I would add that alternative models to explain origins suffer from their own
problems in this area, yet those who criticise evolution theory on this basis
do not seem willing to apply a similarly rigorous of proof on their pet
models. What model for origins are not "linked with speculative and
imaginative STORIES"?
>Perhaps I've read too much into your argument. But, as I've thought over
>it, I've concluded that you are indeed accepting or working with a
>positivist understanding of science, and that is what I am protesting.
I also protest. This criticism is too much like the complaint of logical
postivists that atomic theory is full of gaps, leaps and speculations
because no one has ever seen an atom. Borrowing from an earlier debate I
had with Walter ReMine, different types of knowledge carry different degrees
of certainty of truth. Because the evidence for evolution is not as
convincing as the evidence that the Red Sox currently lead their division,
doesn't necessarily minimize the value of the evolution hypothesis. If the
evolution hypothesis is wrong, science really will not suffer because
science needs the freedom to test both right and wrong hypotheses (stories).
Evolution (and its derivatives) is the only mechanistic hypothesis currently
available for testing because it tries to explain the naturalistic methods
by which God created, and not whether God did it all at once, or in spurts.
For instance, while the PC model may fit the evidence extremely well, PC
only provides metaphysical answers about the mode and not mechanistic
answers about the method in which God created all species. I reiterate a
point I have made several times here, evolution and PC address different
questions.
>
KW
Failing
>> to make a distinction between evidence and the model of evolution is a
>> serious error, but people do it all the time.
This is a problem made by those on both sides of the debate. The knee-jerk
association of evolution science with philosophical naturalism is an example
of how those who criticise evolution commit this error.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________