Nonsense.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Oh I so agree with you, Coyoteman. Still my concern is that a theory can become so "rigid" that it starts filtering out new facts and new insights that may arise in other scientific disciplines.
For instance, Hubert Yockey has brought information science to bear on problems of evolution, particularly insights from his own field of specialization, cryptology. His keenest interest is the evolution of the genetic code. One gets the impression that Yockey thinks of the genome itself -- as a sort of blueprint or template -- as "the common ancestor." He says the origin of the genetic code is unknowable; yet its evolution is something susceptible to investigation and understanding by means of mathematical tools. Clearly he thinks there's more to biological evolution than natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Indeed, just by acknowledging a genetic code, one is tacitly acknowledging the non-randomness of a key feature or driver of biological evolution. Codes don't assemble themselves, but are intelligently specified.
One thing that really bugs me about the defenders of neo-Darwinist theory is that they tell us the main anti-Darwinist onslaught is coming from mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, supersititious-moron creationists; but this is hardly the case. The real challenges are coming from other departments of science -- from mathematics and information theory (as in Yockey's case), and from physics. There has been tremendous resistance by "mainstream biologists" to insights that do not accord with the tenets of Darwinist doctrine.
I want to thank you sincerely for the fine essay you wrote me earlier, in response to my two questions. Jeepers, Coyoteman, it's not that I think you're "wrong," but that I don't think you've taken the problems far enough. But your essay was extremely well done and helpful to me (and to others, I feel sure). I truly appreciate your taking the time to write it, and thank you for it.
There is one point I'd like to make regarding your distinction between the words "faith" and "confidence." You aver science doesn't have "faith," but only "confidence" in its findings. But do you realize there's not really a dime's worth of difference between the two words, when you boil "confidence" down to its etymological roots? Confidence = "con," with, plus "fides," faith, trust (from the Latin).
Which gets us back to the observer, and his indispensable role in the quantification and qualification of reality. I've been driving myself nutz over "the observer problem" in recent times. It's still a work in progress; but I can tell you this with some confidence: It isn't confined to relativity and quantum theory only, but is alive and well in all human knowledge disciplines. It is manifestly alive and well among Darwinist theoreticians.
I'm grateful for this conversation, Coyoteman. Thank you.