Punc Eek and falsification.

lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:28:48 -0400 (EDT)

Looks like we've got at least two definitions of Punc Eek flying around
right now. Some folks are using a narrower, technical definition of
Punc Eek which can be falsified by showing that the data favors other
versions of evolution (e.g. punctuated gradualism).
Jim, Chuck, and others are
using "Punc Eek" the way it is typically used in the popular literature,
namely, as a broad auxilliary hypothesis to macroevolution to deal with
the scarcity of transitional fossils. This broad version of Punc Eek,
it seems to me, is falsifiable in principle, but not in practice,
given our current scientific abilities. (We're just _begining_ to get
our empirical feet under some relatively SIMPLE cases of microevolution;
we don't know enough yet to nail down the "how fast is too fast
for purely natural processes?" question on a macro level.)

Let's remember:

We can write versions of macroevolutionary theory which are unfalsifiable.
We can write versions of macroevolution which are falsifiable and falsified.
We can write versions of macroevolution which are falsifiable only
by extremely unlikely observations.
We can write versions of macroevolution which are not falsifiable with
current scientific abilities, but we expect will eventually be testable.

Likewise,

We can write versions of Progressive Creationism which are unfalsifiable.
We can write versions of PC which are falisifiable and falsified.
We can write versions of PC which are falsifiable only
by extremely unlikely observations.
We can write versions of PC which are not falsifiable with
current scientific abilities, but we expect will eventually be testable.

I'd wager we've seen each of the above described at least once on this
group in the last year.

Loren Haarsma