I'm getting tired of this hair-splitting. The only way to "prove" evolution
in the way that you expect is to invent a time machine. But other forms
of proof are possible. If one can show a reasonable, naturalistic method
by which something *could* have formed, and if the observed structure looks
the way we would expect it to look if it had formed via that method, then
that is about several light-years closer to a scientific explanation than
saying "god did it". Of course, the postulated method may not be the one
that actually occured -- there may be other naturalistic methods that could
account for it. But it is still a scientifically valid (i.e., non-supernatural)
explanation.
>
>We can see this very thing in Keith Robison's piece, which is what Pim is
>relying on, viz.:
>
>"[I]t is possible to posit such an evolutionary process."
Of course we have to "posit" it, in the same way we have to "posit" the
behavior of subatomic particles from the secondary evidence observed. That
doesn't make it an invalid or weak explanation.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.