[adiaireton8]

Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988).

Underdetermination (of the Quine-Duhem sort) makes evolutionary theory per se immune to falsification by the finding of a Precambrian rabbit. Which is more likely: that the rabbit found in what we thought was a Precambrian stratum is actually Precambrian, or that the stratum is not actually Precambrian, or that there was some anomaly that allowed this rabbit (which lived long after the Precambrian era) to become embedded in this Precambrian stratum? A certain view of evolutionary history (or certain proposed phylogenies and taxonomies) might be falsified in this manner, but not evolutionary theory per se.

A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like.

-A8

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988)."

If a *theory* can't be falsified, even hypothetically, than ANY observation can be made to fit the *theory*. The theory is useless. BTW, why couldn't you provide some reasoning as to why falsification is no longer necessary for a scientific theory? At least a summary of the above works?

"Which is more likely: that the rabbit found in what we thought was a Precambrian stratum is actually Precambrian, or that the stratum is not actually Precambrian, or that there was some anomaly that allowed this rabbit (which lived long after the Precambrian era) to become embedded in this Precambrian stratum? A certain view of evolutionary history (or certain proposed phylogenies and taxonomies) might be falsified in this manner, but not evolutionary theory per se."

If you could determine the correct age of the strata, then a huge blow would be made to evolutionary theory. And if you found a couple of more such problem fossils, then the theory would be rightly scrapped. Luckily, nothing of the sort has happened.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like."

Not in support of Darwinian Evolution. ID, on the other hand, as it has no constraints whatsoever on it's causative agent (the alleged intelligent designer), would be able to handle any and every sequence of fossils imaginable. No matter what.

[Matchett-PI]

"Regarding the status of falsificationism see Imre Lakatos, Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (CUP, 1980). See also, Larry Lauden's article in But is it Science? (Michael Ruse ed., 1988). -- A case could be made in support of evolutionary theory as an inference to the best explanation, no matter what the fossil record looked like."

Yep.

QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism? ~ Alvin Plantinga

*

MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...

However, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made that evolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system." Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.

Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" -- Ruse, M: 1992.Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. -- (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)

"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - he who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." - Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838