Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood Message-ID: <1159@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 11:34:41 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1159 Posted: Tue Sep 23 11:34:41 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 05:31:46 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <1148@cybvax0.UUCP> <210@BMS-AT.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 85 Keywords: science flood cosmology Xref: linus talk.origins:90 talk.religion.misc:194 In article <210@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP writes: > For those who didn't know what "special evolution" was: > > "Special evolution" refers to the well established laws of environmental > adaptation (survival of the fittest) published by Darwin. General > evolution refers to the later extension of these laws as a possible > explanation of the origin of life itself. I'd be curious to know whose classification that is. Terms in use by most scientists don't include those, but do include: abiogenesis origin of life from the inorganic microevolution gene frequency changes within populations or species speciation the evolution of new species macroevolution the evolution of larger taxa than species with particular attention to the innovation of radically different structures. > General evolution is a best a hypothesis. The facts are established > by experiments that took place long ago and are not repeatable. Abiogenesis is a theory. The historical event that resulted in life on earth took place long ago and cannot be observed. The only rival naturalistic theory that comes to mind is panspermia. Macroevolution is also a theory. The origin of the taxa also took place long ago. There is no serious scientific rival to this theory, though creationists like to pretend they are the alternative. > The only possibility for confirmation (at present) is to predict that a > certain fossil (that has not already been found) should be found. Are > there any instances of a successful prediction? The journals are full > of "amazing finds". If general evolution were such a well established > theory, a new fossil find should come as no more surprise than the > lastest atomic clock experiment confirming the validity of Einsteins > predictions. The most successful predictions have been in the macroevolution of the vertebrates: the demonstration that birds arose from the dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx and the other recently discovered fossil primitive bird make a convincing link between the features of reptiles and birds. "Amazing" finds in the fossil record no more disprove evolution than the amazing finds of live animals like the platypus disproved creationism. Just as creationists said "God created more than we knew about", so scientists can observe that more taxa have evolved than we have yet discovered. > I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG. I am just saying > that it by its very nature, like creation, is not scientifically verifiable. No theory is "scientifically verifiable". At best, a theory may be refutable in the Popperian sense. These criteria do exist for evolution: for example, if a mosaic pattern (rather than the hierarchical patter we observe) of characters of species is discovered, then evolution would be falsified. There have been many opportunities for this to happen, with every discovery of a new fossil, with every investigation into comparative anatomy, genetics, or biochemistry. > With advances in genetic research, it may become possible to > scientifically prove (or disprove) the *possibility* of general > evolution. When we can observe artificially accelerated general > evolution in the laboratory, we will have established that life could > indeed arise from lifeless matter. Perhaps we could even perform > the experiment on a planetary scale! This testability is what makes evolutionary theory scientific. But it's not just future tests that evolution has to pass: it has already passed innumerable other tests since 1857 as our biological and biochemical knowledge has increased. > This still doesn't prove anything about what actually happened to us. Correct. Science doesn't prove ANYTHING. For example, the movement of the planets might not be due to universal gravitation, but due to being pushed by invisible angels. Science does provide the best theories. Best by the criteria of ease of use, application of Occam's Razor, conformity to observation, etc. -- "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh