Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Prediction or Observation?  II
Message-ID: <467@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-May-85 18:32:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.467
Posted: Sun May 26 18:32:35 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 00:43:25 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 60

Paul DuBois writes:
> 
> This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about
> fossils of higher animals being found in early strata.  It has been
> said that this would falsify evolution.  It wouldn't.  All that
> happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this
> organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized.  Clearly then,
> it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed."  This is what in
> fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were
> as old as _Archaeopteryx_.  "Too early" fossils don't make a dent.

If evolution is unfalsifiable, Paul, why do creationists claim that
there is evidence which contradicts it?  "Unfalsifiable" means that
any conceivable observation is consistent with it.  Why did Gish
entitle one of his books *Evolution:  The Fossils Say NO!*, if the
fossil evidence cannot conceivably contradict evolution?  In an
article in *Science Digest* (Oct. 1981, p. 84), Gish wrote:

	If millions of species have gradually evolved through hundreds
	of millions of years, the fossil record must contain an 
	immense number of transitional forms -- museums should be
	overflowing with them.  The fossil record shows, however, an
	explosive appearance of a great variety of highly complex
	creatures for which no ancestors can be found and systematic
	gaps between all higher categories of plants and animals.
	The fossil record is thus highly contradictory to evolution
	but remarkably in accord with creation.

Creationists also like to bring up the Paluxy footprints, the
creationist Piltdown, as evidence against evolution.  Indeed, I am
sure that the "Scientific Case for Creation" articles that are being
posted to net.origins contain many claims that the evidence is
contradictory to evolution.  No doubt one of those articles also
claims that evolution is unfalsifiable.  

This is an example of the creationist habit of making mutually
contradictory arguments, parodied by Kenneth Miller as follows:  "the
age is 10,000 years ... the radiometric methods are inaccurate ...
the radiometric methods do indicate a great age but we "expected"
that ... we cannot determine the age of the earth by any scientific
evidence, but by the way, we've got some evidence which says it's
young! ... the age of the earth doesn't matter because there's still
not enough time for evolution ..."

So I would like to ask Paul which one of the following mutually
contradictory statements he believes to be true:

1.  Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable; i.e., evolutionary theory
    cannot be contradicted by any conceivable empirical evidence.

2.  There exists empirical evidence which can be shown to contradict,
    disprove, or otherwise refute evolutionary theory.

I hope Paul will put this article near the top of his stack of
articles to be answered; perhaps we can get a reply from Dan B. as
well.  I am reluctant to conclude that creationists are dishonest,
but when they talk out of both sides of their mouths, it is easy to
jump to such a conclusion.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes