I wish to re-emphasize a point that keeps getting lost. We must reject
Popper's recantation as inadequate. He did not show that evolutionary
theory, in any form, is testable. He only barely mentioned testability, and
even then his reasoning was false (see my book or previous post). This is
remarkable because testability was the central issue.
Instead Popper wandered around with defining (and mis-defining) "Darwinism",
and his discussion focused on *explanation*, not testability.
Those happen to be tactics commonly used by evolutionists.
1) Confuse readers with various 'definitions' (and mis-definitions)
of evolutionary theory. When one is challenged, shift to another.
2) Shift the issue from testability to explanation (in other words,
to whether the theory 'explains')
For example, we see those in Brian Harper's discussion below:
>It seems clear to me that Popper is using an extreme form of a theory
>of NS to illustrate how it can be tested. He finds that the sweeping
>claim that all of evolution can be accounted for by NS is false.
>But this is just an exageration for purposes of illustration. I doubt
>too many Darwinists hold that NS explains all of evolution.
Note how Popper (and Brian) focus on "an extreme" definition of evolutionary
theory that no one adheres to. Nice ploy, but it's not relevant. It merely
confuses readers away from the central issue.
Here are more examples:
>If mechanisms other than NS "may be true in particular cases" then
>NS is not "strictly universal".
>....
>It's hard to say if Popper would agree about NS playing the
>"central role" in evolutionary theory. I would guess that he
>would say that this claim is possible but has not yet been
>firmly established.
>
>If you want to find some individuals who do question the central
>role of NS you should try Michael Ho, Peter Saunders, Brian
>Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and other self-organizationalists.
>They say rather forcefully that NS plays only a minor role
>in macroevolution, especially the origin of novelty.
Notice the wandering discussion that leads readers ever further from the
central issue. Brian's discussion focuses on various ways to define
evolutionary theory; whether they are "firmly established"; whether they
'explain'; whether they are accepted by evolutionists, etc. Lots to confuse
readers away from testability. Nowhere did Popper, or Brian (or anyone
else) show testability of their theory.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128