I suppose I learned them as I was being trained. Since I am a professional scientist, I think I qualify as a source on this particular matter.
Are you aware of any other “Laws” that have been shown to be incorrect?
Oh, yes. Newton's second law is incorrect (fails at large velocities). Newton's law of universal gravitation is incorrect (superseded by the theory of general relativity). Kepler's laws are incorrect (also superseded by general relativity).
However, if we use your definitions, we then run into a quandary, don’t we? How do we differentiate between the real and the ephemeral? Do we count heads and have the theory with the largest number of adherents become established fact?
Science can rarely, if ever, determine whether a theory is correct, even in principle. It can only weed out what's incorrect. Even the atomic theory of matter might be said to have been superseded by quantum mechanics, which describes the constituents of matter as waves, rather than as Democritus would have described them. (In practice, however, we simply changed our expectation of what an atom "ought" to be in light of quantum theory, notwithstanding the fact that most people still mistakenly think of them as little billiard balls in any case.)
How do we take two unprovable theories: one being mechanistic evolution, the other positing the existence of an intelligence at the initiation of life, and deciding which one should be embraced and the other shunned? We don’t have the means to repeat the process of theory number one, and can’t order the creator to prove theory number two.
Well, I don't call creationism in general a theory for exactly that reason. Specific creation models, such as the one in Genesis, can have testable consequences and thus may qualify as theories. (As it turns out, the Genesis model fails those tests rather badly, so shunning is required in that case.)
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough.
Couldn't those genetics consequences also be said to 'back' creation, in that the codes are written to support life. Wouldn't they need to be 'written' by an Intelligence? How is that more difficult to believe than 'accidental' order?
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough
Another great post. Have another cigar.
”Pull the other one” (Monty Python)
You may be Von Braun or Lysenko. But one thing I have learned is that the person on the other end of the e-mail connection presenting himself as God’s Gift to Women (or young, slinky and voluptuous) had better present some bonda fides … or source his references. Too many pimply teen agers inhabit the internet using their parents passwords. Sorry Charlie.
”Science can rarely, if ever, determine whether a theory is correct, even in principle.’
Which makes the ultra-fierce support of evolution a puzzling phenomenon, unless the reasons are more emotional than intellectual.
”Specific creation models, such as the one in Genesis, can have testable consequences and thus may qualify as theories. (As it turns out, the Genesis model fails those tests rather badly, so shunning is required in that case.)”
The creation model in Genesis is not testable since it is not reproducible without the cooperation of the Creator.
”In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough.”
Right. See you in roughly several million years? Meanwhile, keep those corpses frozen for evidence as we evolve into the Ubermensch and see from whence we evolved.
As a matter of curiosity, what does the evolution of man theorize we will be in another million years? For a theory to have validity it has to have predictive powers. The theory of evolution certainly cannot imagine evolution purring along for this long and then coming to a dead stop, having decided that man in 2002 is the culmination of sentient development in the universe.