At 03:10 PM 12/7/96 -0600 you wrote:
>Steve Clark says:
>
>
>>This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses.
ls
>This view reflects Popperian mythology. In practice, science has a higher
>component where hypotheses are formulated, before testing.
I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. But I agree with the second
sentence. But it seems to speak to something different than the fact that
science works by testing hypotheses. This hypothetico-deductive mode by
which science operates precedes Popper by generations. The basic point I
tried to make was that the type of paradigm shift required to overturn
evolution science requires a compelling counter theory on which to formulate
new experiments. It is unrealistic to expect a new scientific paradigm to
arise simply because some data are lacking in a current paradigm. Do you
disagree with this?
sc
>> Intelligent design does not provide any testable hypothesis regarding HOW
>>COMPLEX STRUCTURES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.
>>The problem here is two fold. 1) design is not a mechanistic hypothesis.
>>Rather it is a metaphysical world-view. 2) Design is not inconsistent with
>>evolution, because evolution, properly considered, is a mechanistic
>>hypothesis and not a metaphysical world-view. An omnipotent designer could
>>create via evolution. This is the crux of the EC position.
LS
>This is because neither intelligent design ("creation" of some authors) nor
>evolution are hypotheses in the Popperian sense, but are more properly
>cosmologies (religions sensu lato).
I do not follow your point. What you are responding to here?
Evolution science provides a mechanistic model to explain an observation in
nature. In this regard it is no more cosmological than any other scientific
theory. The fact that some people use evolution to support their own brand
of metaphysics doesn't make evolution a metaphysical belief. On the other
hand, one's belief regarding whether the world was designed or not, is
metaphysical and not mechanistic. Such belief says nothing about the
process by which a designer would fabricate life. I believe that it is
important to keep the distinction between physics and metaphysics clear.
They both have their important roles, but big problems are encountered when
they are so closely intermingled, that they begin to look identical.
What tests can be designed that could
>potentially falsify evolution?
So, not all Popperian ideas are mythological?
Off the top of my head, things that could falsify the neoDarwinian synthesis
would be: a very young earth, no extinct species, incompatibility between
Darwinian evolution by natural selection and scientific disciplines of
genetics, molecular biology and developmental biology, that emerged AFTER
the model was formulated.
thanks for your comments.
Shalom,
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 Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
_____________________________________________________________