Loren's posts are always engaging and thoughtful. I consistently like them,
and him. Do not let my usual brevity of style cause you to think otherwise.
Loren's post is long, so I snip out a lot and focus on the testability issue.
Loren listed three hypotheses of the "central core" of Darwinism. (His list
is way too short, and far more structured than the real theory.)
>[Those hypotheses] could, conceivably, be falsified by a dramatic
observation. Suppose
>a new species appeared suddenly, tomorrow, in several separate locations
>around the globe. This would provide a counter-example to the first
>hypothesis.)
If we take Loren's test seriously, then evolution is already falsified,
because new species already do appear suddenly in several separate locations
around the globe -- in the fossil record. And we will find more examples of
it tomorrow and the years to come, perhaps even among living organisms in
unique environments such as rain forests and ocean vents.
So Loren probably didn't mean that. He probably meant something like the
instantaneous (right before your eyes instantaneous) appearance of new
species.
In that case, Loren is using the old "dramatic observation" ploy to make a
theory seem testable -- a method which can (falsely) make anything seem
testable. For example, if the planets stopped moving and everyone's
personality remained unchanged, then astrology would be falsified. If the
planets moved in squares instead ellipses, then guru Hasbro's mystic theory
of gravity would be falsified. Etcetera. The fact is that no one operating
without benefit of those theories would expect such observations either.
They do not test those theories. No one, neither creationist nor
evolutionist, expects to see the instantaneous appearance of new species
simultaneously around the world. Loren's notion does not test evolution, it
is just another run-around.
Snip. Here Loren listed a huge number of unknowns and "auxilliary
hypotheses", any of which could be blamed for empirical failings of
evolutionary theory.
>With these auxilliary hypotheses, all sorts of testable predictions can be
>made, predictions which can be verified or falsified. (Predictions, for
>example, about the expected number of "transition" fossils, or
>the expected degree of genetic homology.)
"Predictions"!!!??? No, those aren't predictions, they are evolutionists'
excuses for the ***absence*** of fossils lineages. Loren is using
reverse-logic again. To refute punctuated equilibria, for example, you
would have to find lots of gradual evolution, or ancestors and lineages. In
other words, punc eek is defined so the only way you can "refute" it is by
finding compelling evidence that evolution ACTUALLY HAPPENED. That's not a
test of evolution.
>As Walter pointed out, some predictions of earlier versions
>of evolution WERE falsified. "Blending
>inheritance" gave way to Mendelevian.
That is another favorite evolutionary dodge. They point to theories that
HAVE BEEN falsified, and claim that shows evolutionary theory is
falsifiable. That's bad logic. (I document examples of this ploy in my
book. Loren does it implicitly here.)
<snip>
A favorite ruse of evolutionists is to divert the discussion to theories
OTHER than evolution. Anything to wear you down and take the heat off
evolution. Loren does that, he diverts us to the Michaelson/Morley
experiment. He suggests it is analogous to his "test" of Darwinism. It
isn't.
The Michaelson/Morley experiment could have confirmed, or refuted, the
notion of ether. It did the latter, and the notion of ether never recovered.
Loren's test is different. Clearly, his experiment might offer possible
support for Darwinism, but Loren has not begun to identify its observations
that could refute Darwinism. They are vastly more elusive than Loren has
admitted to. His notion of pathways through a multi-dimensional genetic
sequence space is complex, and evolutionists have more excuses, cover-ups,
and "auxilliary hypotheses" than they know what to do with. Loren's
discussion on this point is exceedingly bland (non-existent!).
In summary, Loren gave us the run-around, and failed to identify even one
test of evolution.
*******************************
The rest of this post has odds 'n ends.
>As the data came in, all of these "auxilliary hypotheses" have been
>debated, modified, and refined since Darwin's day, while the "central
>core" has remained essentially unchanged.
Loren keeps talking about their "central core" theory. Evolutionists still
embrace all the mechanisms they used to Lamarckian inheritance, genetic
throwbacks, transposition, recapitulation, convergence, common descent,
sexual selection, to name just a few. An empirical failing of one can be
remedied by "explaining" it with another. Evolutionists cannot demonstrate
the sufficiency of their mechanisms, so they invoke mechanisms SOLELY on the
ability to match (and therefore "explain") the data. There is no compact
"central core" of their theory. It's always been a structureless
smorgasbord of conflicting mechanisms.
>.... Auxilliary
>hypotheses are themselves dependent upon observations from other areas of
>science (e.g. developmental biology, molecular biology) which they must
>not contradict.
My book cites examples of evolutionary theorists contradicting each other
about the fundamental "predictions" of evolution.
>Auxilliary hypotheses should, ideally, be "progressive"
>(increasing the empirical content of the theory and making new
>predictions) rather than "degenerative" (_ad_hoc,_ serving only to explain
>a specific observation). If the degenerative auxilliary hypotheses get
>too numerous or too odious, the central core/paradigm gets replaced.
In practice, natural selection is countless degenerative auxilliary
hypotheses serving only to explain a specific observation. Each instance of
organism and environment gets is own special definition of fitness. There
is no coherent theory.
>1) In most contexts, the term "Darwinism" refers to the "central core." ....
Darwinism is an ambiguous term with various meanings -- evolutionists shift
to whatever meaning they need to evade the jaws of a particular criticism.
>3) Walter argues that the flexibility offered by the auxilliary hypotheses
>is a bad thing. I disagree.
That isn't what I argued. I didn't say flexibility was bad. I said
evolution is untestable, because it is TOO flexible.
>Seriously though,
>the writings of Polanyi and Lakatos (along with Popper and Kuhn) can be
>tough slogging at times, but if you want to make rhetorical capital out of
>evolution's "testability" (or lack thereof), you really should pursue
>them!
Loren mistakenly assumes I am unread, simply because I do not agree with
him. And his pointing to various authorities is no excuse for his inability
to identify a test. Popper couldn't identify a test either.
>Ice cream comes in more than two flavors (chocolate or vanilla), and
>ideas come in more than two types ("testable" or "structureless
>smorgasbord").
Loren's rhetoric is getting out of hand. I didn't say ideas came in only
two types.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128