C
cattyfan
Guest
Just saw this and thought it was worth highlighting:
I put ec's answers in bold to make reading easier, but I didn't change any of his words.
Thread can be found here
ec_money said:
Originally Posted by Johnny
Sorry, I'll clarify. The theory of evolution is an explanation of observed facts. The theory of evolution fits all the criteria of a sound scientific theory, including:
1. Simple and unifying
The criteria of simplicity cannot properly be applied to an historical science, since it is commited to a realistic picture. Simplicity is pragmatic criteria which allows us to choose between several theories with identical predictive success. It is NOT a criteria for probable correspondence to reality, unless of course one invokes some concept of an orderly creator.
Secondly, there are problems with how we apply simplicity to a theory. What could be simpler than the claim that God created the world and everything in it five minutes ago? This is certainly a unified and simple explanation for the existence of everything that we see aroung us. In fact, it unifies even more phenomena than evolution does.
One might decide on simplicity on the basis of the number of unobserved or unobservable objects that it posits, however in this case, evolution claims that the number of species which we have observed living and in the fossil record represents only a fraction of those required for the theory. So evolution fails this test.
Then there is unification. Evolution does not unify biology in any demonstrable sense. Instead it is the dogmaitc position that a particular mechanism does in fact unify all of life, and then the "scientists" proceed from there trying to explain on a case by case basis how it does.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
3. Loigically falsifiable
Not really. The only criteria of falsifiability that Darwin would allow was the existence of features that would be essentially detrimental to the animal. I suppose one could press the issue that it is still "logically" falsifiable, but that is merely a necessary and not a sufficient condition for a theory's being scientific.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
4. Limited by explicit boundaries so that data can be assessed for relevancy in verification of falsification.
5. It is empirically testable or leads to predictions or retrodictions that are testable.
6. It can make verified predictions or retrodictions
7. Its predictions or retrodictions are repeatable
Please give an example of unique predictions which have been verified. I cannot think of any, and I've studied the issue for a while. In fact, evolutionists seem to be reluctant to make predictions which could falsify the theory, if that is even possible given the apparent compatibility of the "theory" with essential any observable pattern of viable life-forms.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
8. Resolves problems with previous theories.
If those problems are its susceptibility to falsification, then you're right. But in that case, you have some very unusual ideas of what qualifies as a good theory.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
9. Poses new set of problems for scientists to pursue
Most of which cannot even be verified to be real problems. For instance, debating about whether or not a certain fossil is transitional is a waste of time unless transitions have beeen shown to exist. And if no forms have been shown to be transitional, then the transitions have not been shown to exist. It's a critical catch 22 which does not apply to real science.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
10. Suggests a problem solving model for scientists
More like censors any view that is not consistent with the received dogma. The new problem solving model is a limitation to explanations which are consistent with the dogma, in the absence of which the problem is simply left as unexplained, or outside of our current knowledge. In fact this pretense of a new problem solving model is exactly why evolution is unscientific. This would be like proposing a new problem solving model which presupposed the validity of general relativity, then proposed that all phenomena be explained by showing how they are consistent with or follow from that theory. Any problems unable to be "solved" in this way would simply be left unexplained. It's easy to see that this would make general relativity irrefutable a priori.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
It also has the virtues of a good theory:
1. Conservatism
Of course, since the central premise is never put to falsifying tests.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
2. Modesty
Huh? Claims of evolution go so far beyond observation that to call such a "theory" modest is absurd. Remember, it posits the past existence of a number of distinct species that is many times that which is observed.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
3. Simplicity
You already said that. See the top.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
4. Generality
This can be a vice as well, and it is in the case of evolution. The story is compatible with far too many possibilities for its generality to be a virtue.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
5. Refutability
A theory that cannot be falsified cannot be refuted.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
Evolution is not a hard science like physics is a hard science.
I suppose in that case, astrology could be considered a science, just not a "hard" one.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
Evolution is a theory, a description of observations.
That is nonsense. First of all, a theory is NOT A DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS. Theories go beyond observations. Secondly, evolution does not describe observations either. In fact, the relevant processes occur conveniently oustide of the observable. And when observations happen to refute the theory, it is reformulated to move the transitions back into the unobservable.
Quote Originally Posted by Johnny:
These observations are supported by different degrees of empirical evidence. A good analogy is the theory of gravity. We don't say "the theory gravity is an empirical science".
Gravity is not a theory, it is an observable phenomena which has be explained by various theories, including Newton's, Einstein's, and various proposed theories of quantum gravity. These various theories rise or fall on the basis of repeatable observations of the properties of gravity.
I put ec's answers in bold to make reading easier, but I didn't change any of his words.
Thread can be found here
