>This sounds like you have judged evolution to be false, but if you also
>believe that it isn't falsifiable.......
Steve asks a fair question, and one I knew we would get to in due time.
Before I answer, let me explain myself a little. One cannot address every
issue, in every subtlety, in every sentence. So I generally speak of
evolution as being "unfalsifiable," because in the end that is the best
short description of the issue.
But like every other issue there is always more when put under the
microscope. I view scientific theories (and hence origins debates) as
rather like a boxing match. The boxer has a left, which is "Falsified!"
And a right, which is "Unfalsifiable!" (There are other types of punches
too, such as "Non-explanatory!", "Self-contradictory!", and "Inconsistent!"
But let us think of those as specialized versions of the two basic punches.)
Boxers proceed around the ring, alternating punches, and tenderizing the
beef, so to speak. Rarely is there a single, knock-out punch.
Also, it is flimsy to throw both punches at the very same moment at the very
same target. It doesn't work. It carries no impact. But theories move,
they've got wiggle room, they've got legs. And it is perfectly legitimate
-- even essential -- for a boxer to use BOTH types of punches. Done
properly, there is nothing self-contradictory about it.
Some punches are solid, and some are mere glancing blows. A theory is in
serious trouble when repeatedly receiving solid punches, even if they may be
alternating. When the contest gets down to endless to-and-fro about whether
a theory is "falsified" or "unfalsifiable", then the theory is losing its
grip on empirical reality. The actual categorization is then mostly of
academic interest. Many theories are not actually knocked out, but are
judged T.K.O. and abandoned in time.
Let me make a few additional points. I, together with most scientitists,
and virtually all anti-creationists, endorse testability as one essential
feature of a scientific theory. In my view, this is not a static "line of
demarcation" between science and non-science. But rather part of a dynamic
process. In other words, I reject the notion (occasionally advanced these
days by a few evolutionists and even a creationist or two) that testability
is a discredited notion.
I emphasize also that the testability criterion was endorsed by leading
evolutionists, many scientific organizations and nobel laurettes -- in court
cases against creation theory. They put their names to it, and they are
obliged to apply the same criterion to evolutionary theory.
The "tests" offered by evolutionists are phony. They sound like a test, but
don't deliver. Typically they allow that you can "refute" one pet
evolutionary theory by demonstrating some other evolutionary mechanism. In
other words, "refute" one evolutionary by proving another.
Or they shift the test to some other microscopic issue, whose outcome would
not refute macroevolution. In that case it has nothing to lose.
Macroevolution, the molecules-to-man transformation, has huge implications.
Yet when it comes to testing, Macroevolution says, "Go box with my little
brother Microevolution!"
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128