The dreaded triple post!
>>Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. <<
Like those interpretive sciences cosmology, geology and astronomy. They offer nothing but speculation and no science upon which we can rely.
Even worse is that demon science quantum physics — not only can you not rely on what has happened, you can’t rely on what WILL happen!
Yeah, you got me.
>>but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.<<
Tell that to viruses, antibiotic resistance and pest resistance.
>>So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.<<
Yes, because the physical universe operates differently in THAT ONE ASPECT.
Science: learn it, live it, love it. Don’t ape it/
“Yes, because the physical universe operates differently in THAT ONE ASPECT.”
No, because it is one of many examples where science simply CANNOT offer conclusive answers unless and until time travel is invented. You do realize don’t you that there is an infinitely great amount of data which is lost forever? Or perhaps science will discover a way to recover this information, but it will require the discovery of new scientific principles and the invention of new technology, because I have never heard of a single scientist who thinks we have existing technology which can use existing principles of science to traverse space-time and gather this lost historical data. And even if it were possible, the uncertainty principle still necessitates the loss of some data.
“Like those interpretive sciences cosmology, geology and astronomy.”
You first need to distinguish arguments about science from arguments about philosophy of science, which is what we are discussing. Some science is more precise than other science. Physics can allow incredibly precise trajectories for rocket ships. Medicine is less predictable because a doctor is forced to work with many unknowns. So medical doctors may not always have the exact, immediate solution to an illness, but they may still arrive at the right solution through trial and error. But trying to divine history is going to result in exponentially less precision because we are working from extremely limited information.
This is why we consider Lincoln’s assassination a historical fact rather than a scientific one. It is not an experiment to be repeated in a lab. It is an event. Would you propose we can map out every event, every action, every spoken word, every word written down through history by simply applying the scientific method to it?
There is a big difference between testable theories of gravity, space-time relativity, astrophysics, and so on, and hypothetical events which can never be verified or falsified unless time travel is invented. In astronomy we can actually see backward in time. We can see light from stars billions of years away. We can observe the past directly. We can make testable predictions.
Let us suppose for a moment that life has arisen spontaneously out of naturally occurring environments in many places in the universe. Let us further assume that life on this planet originated in some other part of the universe and was transported here by some natural means and then evolved into all the varieties of life we see today. If several completely unique life forms seeded this planet and then evolved into all of the forms we now see, in what way would it be measurably different from a singular life form seeding all of the life we see?
I do not question that all cats have a common ancestor. But I think there is no reason to believe humans share that common ancestor. You may not like that there are reasons to believe this which have greater validity than scientific inquiry, but there are. And the supposedly scientific arguments for our common ancestry are first irrelevant because they have no practical bearing on how science, medicine, and technology work today. And second, the arguments are specious. Things like we share common genetic “flaws”. We use the same exact arguments in courts of law these days to PROVE a person has violated intellectual property rights in copied computer code or plagiarized literature. It can just as easily support a common author or designer as it can support a common ancestor. It is unreasonable to assume that life was not created, but you are demanding this simply because this creation is not a repeatable event in a lab, but then neither is UCA. And unlike UCA, people have met and recorded their meeting of the Creator. And the Creator’s observations of creation have been recorded.
Your reply expresses the exact reason why scientism is a dangerous philosophy that aligns well with tyrannical forms of government that seek to use “science” as a way to invoke unquestionable authority. (Think carbon trade credits. Do you think carbon trade credits are the obvious solution to the fact of man-made global warming? Because this is a scientific fact, and anyone who disagrees deserves mockery and possibly fines or confinement.) By lumping all of the sciences together as having equal viability and authority, it appears you haven’t even listened to the argument. You are too busy mocking and self-congratulatory assertions like this one:
“Tell that to viruses, antibiotic resistance and pest resistance.”
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the premise that all life has a universal common ancestor. That is a preposterous proposition. The problem is that you are putting an unscientific, untestable, non-falsifiable speculation of UCA on par with the testable, Bible-inspired premises that gave us principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, pasteurization, and the germ theory of disease.
Pasteur rejected the abiogenesis of his day when he rejected spontaneous generation. His belief in the Bible and the concept of unique kinds led him to challenge the pop-science of his day (and incidentally Darwin’s day). This proves unquestionably that subscribing to UCA is NOT necessary to the advancement of science.