From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Tue Oct 14 2003 - 05:10:40 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote in response to Sarah Berel-Harrop's question:
>>...What
>> is your objective, to understand what Darwin said
>> or to understand the modern field of evolutionary
>> biology?
>Neither -- It is to ascertain if either one is a falsifiable science.
>That is all.
The fact of evolution is easy to falsify in principle: Just find a bunch of fossils grossly out of sequence in undisturbed formations. For example, find homo sapiens skeletons in undisturbed Carboniferous limestone. Evolution emphatically predicts such things do not exist, so to falsify it, just find them. YECs in fact have claimed to have made finds of this sort (e.g., human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks), but none have stood up under scrutiny.
In a similar way, Newton's theory of gravity could have been falsified by a careful study of Mercury and its orbit. This doesn't mean scientists prior to general relativity would have rejected Newton's theory. Likewise, finding a few fossils out of sequence doesn't mean scientists would reject evolution. In both cases the theories would continue to be accepted because they would continue to be the best available. No scientific theory should be accepted by scientists without reservations.
Proposed mechanisms of evolution are a different story. Support for these comes from plausibility arguments, and such arguments aren't falsifiable. You either believe them or you don't. Nevertheless, they are widely accepted because they are the best natural mechanisms we know of.
I suppose mechanisms of all historical sciences lean heavily on plausibility arguments. However, geology has lots of obvious modern analogs, while those for evolution are less obvious.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Hicks
To: Sarah Berel-Harrop
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)
Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
> Walt said:
>
> "My bookshelf is too full for anything other than what I really need. For
> evolutionary biology the web site:
> http://www.Colorado.EDU/epob/epob3250mgrant/public_html/lectlist.html
> was recommended to me for a cursory understanding. Do you think this is
> O.K.? "
>
> Personally, I find it fractured. Lecture notes are by
> their nature incomplete. Talkorigins FAQ's are better,
> albeit not to the same depth. The best thing really is
> a textbook. That is the only thing that is going to give
> you a concise and fairly complete survey of the basic
> concepts involved.
If you can tell me a textbook that offers a theory that it clearly falsifiable,
I will go buy it. And maybe tell me (and others ) what tests could falsify
those current theories.
>
>
> I said:
> "You seem to be
> using _Origin of Species_ as your reference point,
> and that is quite inappropriate."
> To which Walt replied:
> "Wrong on two counts.
> 1.) I use Darwin's work only as a reference for what Darwin really said --
> versus what I read as someone else's opinion of what he said. (e.g. that he
> spoke of mutation.)
> 2.) That _is_ the appropriate way to evaluate what Darwin said. (IMO) "
>
> Walt, who is telling you Darwin spoke of mutations?
> That is completely wrong, and if it is on the internet
> I would like a URL.
It pops up a lot. A google search can find them up for you. Mostly ICR and the
like ------ but an ASA one is:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199911/0115.html
It has a quote that I cannot find in my copy. I thought that Darwin did not
even know what a gene was -- let alone mutate one.
> Sure reading Origin of Species
> will tell you what he said. It also provides examples
> of Darwinian concepts that were later falsified, like
> divergence & blended heritability (I am not sure I
> have got the latter terminology correct). But what
> is your objective, to understand what Darwin said
> or to understand the modern field of evolutionary
> biology?
Neither -- It is to ascertain if either one is a falsifiable science. That is
all. Nothing else. Obviously my communication skills are lacking.
I don't think that they are falsifiable and that's O.K. ---- but it means that
I can't accept them at face value. I find that less than satisfying and I cling
to the possibility that Johnson is correct. I currently have a high degree of
sympathy for some of Johnson's views. There is no objectivity by evolutionary
theorists IMO. They KNOW that they are right and do not have to prove anything
to anybody.
So they don't try.
Walt
--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 14 2003 - 05:07:55 EDT