Strong word that - predicts. As someone who might even take slight credit for the recent retreat of evolutionists from one, THE Theory, to a plenitude of 'every versions', perhaps you might explain to me some of these competing versions of a theory of evolution? Do you consider them to be science? Can they be falsified? Does any one person confess the same sense of any one of these 'every versions' as anyone else, or do all just talk past each other under a vague, undisciplined, a-scientific or anti-scientific generalized religious conviction of an evolutionism?
Strong word that - predicts. As someone who might even take slight credit for the recent retreat of evolutionists from one, THE Theory, to a plenitude of 'every versions', perhaps you might explain to me some of these competing versions of a theory of evolution? Do you consider them to be science? Can they be falsified? Does any one person confess the same sense of any one of these 'every versions' as anyone else, or do all just talk past each other under a vague, undisciplined, a-scientific or anti-scientific generalized religious conviction of an evolutionism?
I agree that 'predicts' is a strong word—that's why I chose it. The word isn't used enough in connection with evolutionary theory.
It's a general point about theories of nature that if they don't make predictions, they're not scientific theories of nature. I mentioned in my little blurb just one prediction that an evolution theory would make (I'll concede that, since I'm neither a biologist nor a paleontologist, I'm not prepared to do much more than mention that there still appears to be room for disagreement about the rate and precise mechanisms whereby speciation takes place—although, to my knowledge, there's no serious disagreement among practicing biologists and paleontologists about whether speciation takes place). If the prediction I mentioned were to turn out to be wrong (that is, if the fossilized bones of a verifiably modern human were to be discovered in a 50-million-year-old sediment layer), that would falsify current (admittedly still tentative) accounts of the lineage of modern humans that has been built up painstakingly over the past 100 or so years. (Note that I don't expect this to happen, so, if it did, it would be a thing wondrous to behold and an opportunity for new theory-making activities to proceed.)
On the other hand, I'd be interested in finding out whether any version of intelligent design theory has made any prediction at all about the fossil record, and, if so, whether that prediction is at least in principle falsifiable. Would you know?
Best regards...