Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
But, Hugh, they AREN'T all testable. For a long time, many of Einstein's
predictions were untestable. I don't know how you would go about
testing string theory or any number of other things that we lump
into "science".
Or do you mean Darwinism as the mechanism? I find it hard to
believe that anyone would dispute that organisms change over time!
It is so easy to demonstrate that it is inconceiveable to me that
anyone would have a problem bringing a doubter around.
For example, we have extrapolated from observations that there was a
"Big Bang". However likely that extrapolation is to be true, I
can't for the life of me see how that can be tested!?
But we routinely PHRASE what we say in such a way as to obscure that
little detail. The public doesn't automatically add the qualifier
that a scientist does mentally: "What we observe leads us to believe
such and forth. Subsequent testing has not shown this to be in
error, so we have a 75% (or 90%, or whatever) level of confidence in
our speculation. We do not KNOW that this is correct, but we
strongly (or very strongly) believe that it is. If it's shown to be
incorrect tomorrow, we will cheerfully drop this speculation in
favor of a different one." The public doesn't underst and that
concept, and it is incumbent upon those who DO to make it clear at
some point in what we say and write. It's just carelessness on our
parts.
> So far all anyone has is some rather vague
possibilities, which need to be subjects to some rigorous> conditions on earth that we do not know well enough.
experimental testing, much of which may still be technologically
beyond our capability, or may depend upon knowledge of the early
Again, if we are unable to convince people that organisms change
over time, then we're poor educators.
If we expect them to accept extrapolations as "fact" when they fly
in the face of their strongly held beliefs, then we're deluding
ourselves.
You say we see fossils that we can fit "nicely into patterns". Well
that is what we do as thinking organisms. We see patterns.
Sometimes we see pattens where none really exist (I make it a point
in my classes to be very careful to avoid unintended "patterns" for
the kids to pick up on as a short cut to solving physics problems -
They are amazingly creative about the patterns they detect <g>). AS
I've said, for me personally, I have no problem with change over
time. Frankly, I don't really care what the mechanism is, or if
there is more than one at work. I confess to being skeptical about
all life evolving from a single-celled organism that itself derived
from non-living chemicals. I grant that it is a perfectly ok
explanation of what we see, and as long as that is how it is
presented, I have no problem with it.
I find both equally at fault. Many biology teachers with whom I amFrankly, coming from the other side of the issue of religion, I find
acquainted are careless in making the distinction, and they are not
aided in the task by prior science teachers. I'm sure that there
are a few people out there who feel the need to "debunk" religion
doing the same thing. For most of us, I think it is no more than
careless phrasing.
>As I have stated many times here and elsewhere, evolution
> is not about the origin of life, only about the mechanism of its
change.
If everyone agreed with your very correct definition, in what they
say and write, we wouldn't be in the position in which we find
ourselves. That's my opinion anyway, for whatever than may be worth
<g>.