Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Petrosius
Falsifying the tree of descent, not the theory of natural selection, is the key phrase above.

But falsifiying the tree would also falsify the theory of natural selection. Natural selection cannot work with any old tree. Out of all possible trees natural selection is only compatible with a mere few.

Given that there are now competing claims as to whether dinosaurs were more reptilian or more avian, and that evolutionists are ready with explanations for either case, I am not confident that any fossil find would be accepted as falsifying Natural Evolution.

Modern mammals in the cambrian would do it. Seriously try and draw a tree of descent where modern mammals exist before early primitive mammals and their reptile-like mammal ancestors. You can't have a fossil existing before it's ancestors.

Nor does the fact that it could be falsified by a non-experimental observation make it an empirical science.

Experiments are not a requirement of empirical science.

however the study is a forensic one, not an empirical one. Such is the case with Evolution.

Forensic science is empirical. Geology is empirical. Paleontology is empirical.

My problem is not that supporters Evolution are presenting a theory but that they are insisting that it has a greater confidence of being true than it really does.

No, I don't see that at all. As a rough analogy it's like a hole which you cannot see and you can only guess it's shape by making different shaped pegs and slowly inserting them into the hole.

For almost any peg you make, it will go in part way. But it only takes one part of the peg to not fit to tell you that the hole is not the same shape as the peg.

Creationism in this analogy is a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes, and on this particular hole it got stuck part way in.

Evolution in this analogy is also a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes. In this case it has been slowly inserted into the hole for 150 years, and so far has not blocked.

What ID is in this analogy is a chopstick being poked into the hole. Yes it fits, but then it would fit any shaped hole, so it is useless at telling us what shape the hole might be.

It is also dishonest to suggest that competing theories must somehow be unscientific if they do not lead to a naturalistic conclusion. In science nothing should be presupposed.

What about the theory that an invisible supernatural weathermaker causes many of the rain storms around the world? Is that deserving as a competing theory to Natural Meteorology? Should it be taught in schools as a rival theory?

In science's view (and mine) of course such a theory is not a *scientific* theory at all because it is not testable, because it is not falsifiable. However while I can say it isn't a scientific theory, I don't see what grounds you have to say that Intelligent Weather is not a valid scientific theory given what you wrote above.

139 posted on 11/14/2005 9:34:36 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]


To: bobdsmith
Forensic science is empirical.

Forensic science makes use of empirical science. Thus when when an investigator uses ballistics to determine the path of a bullet he is using an empirical science. When he collects his evidence and says that Dillinger fired the shot he is making a forensic, non-empirical, conclusion. When Evolution studies the human genome it is engaging in an empirical science. When it concludes that random mutations and natural selection over a long period of time accounts for the variety of life it is making a forensic conclusion that is only conjecture. The confidence that we can place in such forensic conclusion is variable. Thus in court we see the need for "preponderance of the evidence" in civil court and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court.

What about the theory that an invisible supernatural weathermaker causes many of the rain storms around the world? Is that deserving as a competing theory to Natural Meteorology? Should it be taught in schools as a rival theory?

Now you are being insulting as well as silly. This is based on the assumption that faith must be irrational and purely a matter of fideism. Anyone with a familiarity with philosophy would know that there are rational proofs for a belief in God in general and in the Christian revelation in particular. Inasmuch as human testimony is open to scientific study so is the witness of the Apostles. If the possibility of falsification by a random fossil find is enough to qualify Evolution as an empirical science then the same could be said of the Christian faith. The discovery of the tomb of Jesus with his bones intact would falsify it. Thus either both Evolution and Christianity are empirical sciences or neither is.

144 posted on 11/14/2005 1:30:48 PM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson