On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:15:29 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>Implicit in Susan's remark is another: Scientific method is not suited to
>the study of divine feet in the door. Scientific method uses a process of
>conjecture and refutation by empirical test of implications. What test would
>you propose based on the presence of a divine foot in the door in the midst
>of a theory of mechanics (say)? The scientist wants theories that imply
>things like: "If we measure this quantity, and it does NOT have THIS value,
>then the theory is false." Or: "If we look in places where thus and so
>conditions are met, we will find fossilized whatsits." What similar test of
>a divine foot would you propose?
The point is that Lewontin would not even allow the Divine Foot in the door
*no matter* what the "test" was. He (and all materialist-naturalists) rule out
the "Divine foot" *absolutely* no matter what the evidence for it is. As
Johnson comments on this:
"That paragraph is the most insightful statement of what is at issue in the
creation/evolution controversy that I have ever read from a senior figure in
the scientific establishment. It explains neatly how the theory of evolution
can seem so certain to scientific insiders, and so shaky to the outsiders. For
scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes
thereafter." (Johnson P.E., "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism,"
First Things, 77, November 1997, pp22-25.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html)
And since the opposite of the Divine Foot in the door in Lewontin's quote
was *materialism*, perhaps you could tell us what "empirical test" materialism
would make of the type: "If we look in places where thus and so conditions are
met, we will find fossilized whatsits"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"His powers of imagination were already well developed, and in addition to
childish fibs, he invented a bogus story that he was able to produce
variations in crocuses, polyanthuses, and primroses at will, by watering
them with coloured liquids, which was of course, as he admitted, 'a
monstrous fable,' but also shows that the was not unaware of variation,
even at that age." (de Beer G., "Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural
Selection," Nelson: London UK, 1963, p24)
--------------------------------------------------------------------