"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I here apologize for deviating somewhat from your original
> philosophical string, but your mention that "the scientific concept
> of evolutionary development [is] empirically warranted'' is so much on
> target with a related interest of my own that I hope you might allow
> this intrusion.
>
> > Namely, I have for a number of years been seeking examples of
> verifiable 'empirical' evidence establishing biological evolution as
> 'scientific' ... but with little (no) success. Upon reading your
> above statement it appears you may be aware of such evidence. Please
> do briefly describe specific examples you feel properly qualifies as
> empirical evidence confirming the reality of (macro) evolution to
> assist me in my search.
Van Till replies:
> The whole of the body of scientific literature, along with the
> evaluation of that literature by persons whose training and experience
> qualifies them to do that evaluation, provides the warrant of which I
> speak.
> If you demand a short list of 'verifiable' examples--isolated from
> that
> whole body of scientific literature and its evaluation by the
> professional scientific community--that will suffice to convince a
> person who begins with a skeptical attitude, then you will probably be
> disappointed. It would be something like saying to a forest ranger, "I
> doubt that forests exist, but show me a tree that proves the existence
> of the forest and I'll believe in the existence of the forest." In
> reality, you just have to see a major portion of forest in order to
> gain a sense of what a forest is.
>
> Following is a list of some of my publications if you are interested
> in
> seeing more of my approach and what leads me to it. (List not shown
> for brevity...DAB)
>
> Cordially,
>
> Howard Van Till
>
>
Dear Dr. Van Till,
Thanks for your prompt reply of 6/29 above ... however, as one
attempting to validate the observation that over 90% of ALL disagreement
in the creation/evolution dichotomy is traceable more to semantics
(imprecise, careless use of language) than to actual scientific
differences ... I am disappointed by your choice (or inability?) not to
simply cite even one specific example of "empirical" evidence as
required to properly validate the application of this term to evolution.
While I admire the semantic picture drawn by your 'tree' and 'forest'
analogy, its really not all that appropriate. Indeed, on quick reading,
it appears more misleading than informative. Would it not be a better
fit to identify the skeptic as one well acquainted with 'trees' (from
prior experience and textbook definitions), finding himself in the
middle of a horizon to horizon grassland and being informed by a
resident 'ranger' that he was surrounded by a 'forest'. Under these
conditions, is it understandable and appropriate for him to ask the
'ranger' to please point out an example of what he considers a 'tree'?
Dr. Van Till, I do have a science degree (BSME, Univ. of Mich. '49) ...
and after 40 years of focused attention, I am nominally acquainted with
the scientific literature in this field. Therein I find numerous
expressions of sincere "belief", authoritative "assertions",
unverifiable "conclusions" , questionable "speculations", unbounded
"extrapolations", interesting "conjecture" and colorful "Just-So
stories". All presented in such context as to imply, if not out rightly
state, that these non-empirical positions somehow establish the concept
of 'evolution' to the same level of relative certainty normally (and
properly) reserved for "empirical" science. But nowhere, even upon
request, can I find an author willing to identify any example of
empirical evidence meeting the defining criteria universally set forth
in undergraduate science curriculae.
This lack of empirical (physical verification, limited to the five
senses ... real world experiments, NOT mental experiments) support for
evolution is no secret amongst knowledgeable evolutionary believers.
Indeed, This is well known and often heatedly discussed in many of the
smaller circulation more specialized technical journals. But it is
infrequently mentioned, if not purposely concealed or obscured, in the
undergraduate classroom and with the public at large. Fortunately, such
obfuscation is being increasingly challenged as folks increasingly seek
to understand the specific scientific proof methods upon which various
evolutionary claims are based.
Confronted by such demands, and some apparently on their own convinced
the time has come to be more straightforward as to proof methods
actually applied, authors are beginning to open this up to a wider
audience. The following excerpts from respected evolutionary authors in
semi-popular publications is a hopeful sign. They acknowledge (in
guarded acadamese) that some (many, most, or all?) evolutionary concepts
are outside classic "empirical" science. They are even coining new names
for their proposed alternatives to "empirical" science (see 'historical
narrative' science and 'hypothetico-deductive' or 'HD' science below).
Unfortunately, at this early stage evolutionists are still most hesitant
in describing any alternative (lesser, non-empirical) proof-establishing
criteria they consider sufficient to identify "science" in their new
method. Indeed, it is even doubtful that they have determined such
criteria (beyond majority-consensus belief of which they understandably
are not too proud.) Adding to their quandary is that once this
non-empirical (non-physical, mentally determined) criteria is made
public, they will have to apply the same lesser standards to
alternative, non-evolutionary explanations qualifying them equally as
science. First we read:
"However, if we enlarge the methodology of science so as to include
historical narratives, we can often explain unique events rather
satisfactorily, and sometimes even make testable predictions." by Dr.
Ernst Mayr, NATURAL HISTORY, May 1997, Pgs. 8-12.
Here Dr. Mayr in his candid discussion of evolution recognizes the need
to 'enlarge' (go beyond) the present 'methodology' of science ... which
most evolutionary authors describe as 'experimental verification'. His
'improvement' would be to grant equal certainty to 'historical
narratives'. I've long felt that accepting empirically untestable
'historical narratives' (the Bible, for instance) better constituted
religion than science. But then again, evolution, in its trusting
belief in untestable concepts involving origin, purpose or destiny of
life IS in many ways a religion, so we may as well admit it.
That evolution is less rigorous in its methodology than physical
(empirical) science is often characterized with a bit of disdain by
those in the 'hard' sciences.
"Traditionally one encountered statements, both in the literature of
physical sciences and in philosophy, that the physical sciences obey
strictly deterministic laws, while biology, as J. Herschel said of
evolutionary biology, 'obeyed the law of higgledy-piggledly.'" Dr. J.
Herschel as quoted by Dr. Mayr in his chapter in EVOLUTION AT A
CROSSROADS; Compiled by Depew & Webster; MIT Press; 1987; Pg. 48.
The inability of evolution to qualify as 'empirical' science is
discussed at considerable length in this 1998 publication: In personal
correspondence with Dr. Lewis I found him to be as cordial and
intellectually honest as he is dedicated to evolutionary belief. This
is well apparent in his unique (amongst evolutionists) willingness to
properly characterize the non-empirical status of evolution.
"During the 50 year life of The American Biology Teacher there has been
a change in the general view of method in biological science. A brief
look at this change and its possible consequences for biology education
may interest those who are searching for ways to improve education at
the high school and college levels. The change was from descriptive
biology to hypothetico-deductive biology, that is to theoretical
biology." by Dr. Ralph Lewis, Prof. Emeritus, M.S.U., East Lansing, MI,
in "Biology: A Hypothetico-Deductive Science", published in THE AMERICAN
BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 50, No.6, Sep't., 1998.
When I sat down to prepare this reply I really didn't expect to get
quite this involved ... and apologize should you consider it overlong.
But I do want to add one more reference ... the one that convinced me to
focus on this definition kick several years back.
"An important operational rule is that each word in a scientific
statement must carry exactly the same meaning to all scientists, at
least to all who practice in a given field or area of science. This
rule requires that all words be precisely defined. Scientists must be
very fussy about definitions, even if that seems painful to others." Dr.
A. N. Strahler; SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION/CREATION
CONTROVERSY; Prometheus Press; 1987; Pg. 6.
Chow!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 21:32:28 EDT