One criterion is the basing of theories on empirical evidence. Of course,
there's room for a certain amount of speculation in science, but that should
be labelled as such and there must be a kernel of empirical evidence.
Another criterion is the rejection of invalid arguments -- in pseudoscience
such as creationism, invalid arguments are allowed to stand long after they
have been shown to be invalid. As an example I would mention the ridiculous
argument that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of
thermodynamics.
Well, I expect that to stir up some arguments! ;-)
Hi Tich,
A few more evolutionists like you and this controversy would die on the vine.
I applaud your honesty. Your lack of arrogance is refreshing. I hope you
stay around, whether you remain a staunch evolutionist or become interested
in alternatives. I can't find anything in your post to challenge, but keep
posting. Maybe I'll find something.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 08:42:38 EST