My paraphrasing was an accurate assessment of the Popper quote that was posted earlier. Being able to rephrase an idea in one's own words is the best demonstration one can make of one's comprehension of the idea. The corollary that once falsified, a theory is no longer a theory, is implicit. Still, as far as I can tell, the only reason for throwing around this particular Popper quote is to introduce by inferrence the notion that the Theory of Evolution is untested and untestable, without actually having to present evidence to support that notion (because such evidence does not exist).
This is precisely what the historical sciences, most notably including Darwinist theory, refuse to do. They don't try to falsify their theory. Rather, they select evidence on the basis of what can validate their theory and ignore all the rest — anything to uphold the "just-so story," even though it is increasingly difficult to do that.
Once again, you brought up this false dichotomy between "historical" disciplines (biology) and "real-time" disciplines (physics). If, in fact, biologists do not try to falsify their theory, it should be trivial to find evidence of that. Just look in PubMed (www.pubmed.org) and find some research articles that illustrate that we do not try to falsify our theories. Show your evidence here, with appropriate quotes and links back to the original articles, and explain how they fail to include tests designed to falsify incorrect theories, and what those tests should have been.
I see Stephen Jay Gould quoted a lot here. No doubt he's rolling in his grave right now, seeing his work which was essential to helping to refine the ToE, taken out of context to try to show that he didn't think evolution occurred. Selectively quoting people to make it look like they're proving exactly the opposite of what they thought is actually quite a common meme when it comes to anti-science movements; it is not surprising to see that meme pop up here.
Also, I'd like to clear up some confusion over the terms I have been using which evidently have resulted in your claiming a "false dichotomy."
I've been comparing the discipline of historical sciences (e.g. anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and evolution biology) to hard sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry.)
Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.
Personally, I value physics far above any other science discipline and mathematics above physics.
That said, the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science, e.g. psychology, social sciences. Such disciplines are so far removed from either historical or hard sciences, they are not even relevant in this discussion.
In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.
When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.
The article I linked for you earlier examines methodological and epistemic differences between historical sciences and experimental sciences.
Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)
But to whatever extent a hypothesis presupposes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is a "just so" story - inferior to my eyes and the eyes of many others.
You continue to insist that your quote from Popper was "an accurate assessment" in the face a at least a few people who, so far, are on record as rejecting your assessment, I gather on logical and evidentiary grounds.... No matter. Let the games begin.
You wrote:
...this particular Popper quote is to introduce by inferrence the notion that the Theory of Evolution is untested and untestable, without actually having to present evidence to support that notion (because such evidence does not exist).If this is what Popper is saying, then it seems to me he's not telling us anything we don't already know: To wit: The Theory of Evolution (as an indisputably, thorough-goingly historical science) is completely untestable by means of Bacon's Scientific Method.
You seize onto the idea of "false dichotomies," but I don't really see you demonstrate any.
You say that "no evidence exists" that can disprove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Well, since I have found plenty of disconfirming evidence by now, how are we ever to get "on the same page" again, so as to have a rational discourse about the facts of such matters?
Arrrgghhhhh! I pray for truthful communication and understanding with/among my fellow human beings at all times.
So, where do you and I, dear exDemMom, go from here?