Well, I don't intend to dodge anything, however, I am not responsible for
how you interpret what I say here.
>>At this juncture, I am not interested in what leading evolutionists and
>>scientific organization would say. Just be straight with us here.
>
>I sense that Steve is sincerely interested in my views here, (and in giving
>them a good kicking around!) Which is all fair, and part of the fun! I'll
>venture to offer my views. Just don't forget what I said above, okay.
>
>In my view there are many independent tests of evolution, and evolution has
>failed them. Let me list some. There is the systematic absences of:
> Demonstrations of the naturalistic origin of life
> Extraterrestrial life
> Demonstrations of evolution that span the gaps
> in life's pattern
> Demonstrations of "convergent evolution" of the
> magnitude we see in nature
> Clear-cut ancestors and lineages -- a REAL phylogeny
> Potent evolutionary mechanisms, such as Lamarkian
> inheritance, widespread transposition and atavism
>
>Let me add the following problems:
> The theoretical and experimental failures to explain the
> origin and maintenance of sexual reproduction
> (i.e. recombination), diploidy, and genetic systems in
> general
> The failure of evolutionary genetics to provide a coherent
> model that can solve substantial existing problems,
> such as: Haldane's Dilemma, the highly inert genome,
> and error catastrophe
> The tendency for abrupt appearances of fully formed
> fossil groups
> The structure of the fossil record tends to 'self-authenticate'
> itself, thereby preventing evolutionists (such as the
> punctuationists) from invoking rampant
> "incompleteness" of the fossil record.
>
>These are not piecemeal difficulties. They represent a broad failure of
>evolutionary theory. But that is my view.
>
>Evolutionists look at this and say "See, this is Science, we never have all
>the answers. We don't start with perfection" and they make lots of excuses.
>
>Evolutionists regard their theory as "fact", not falsified. Their view, not
>mine, sets the standard for their theory. Is evolution falsified, or
>unfalsifiable? Either way, it has no grip on reality. Either way it is not
>science. If pressed for a categorization, I say evolution is unfalsifiable,
>as that is its essential character as practiced by its proponents.
Thank you for explaining your views. However, I am not sure how you
reconcile saying that evolution is unfalsifiable with the following
statement you made above,
>In my view there are many independent tests of evolution, and evolution has
>failed them.
This sounds like you have judged evolution to be false, but if you also
believe that it isn't falsifiable.......
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
Madison, WI 53792
"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody
asks me" Augustine'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________