[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[rmcder at PEOPLEPC.COM (R. McDermott)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Cohen" <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders


> I agree with the main point of R. McDermott's posts (that the science
> education community could be doing a better job of presenting what
> science does and doesn't do).  However, I don't follow the assertion
> that macroevolution and the big bang are untestable.
>
> > 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!?
>
> If the big bang was true, certain things should be observable in the
> current universe and other things should not.

When we test a hypothesis it usually involves "if A occurs, then B occurs",
and we attempt to directly observe the relationship of the variables.  That
is what I mean by testable.  Other times we simply try something to see what
happens, which falls into another category altogether.  In the case of the
"Big Bang" we have taken observations and extrapolated to a cause for those
observations.  Turning that around and saying the extrapolation is true
because the observations exist is circular reasoning.  Are there other
explanations for what we observed?  Maybe not in this case.  Are we certain
the observations can be relied upon?  Part of the observations are based
upon acceptance of the Hubble Constant which itself assumes that farther
away means faster moving.  What is our confidence level on that assumption?

> If evolution was true,

What are you defining as "evolution"?  Change of organisms over time (which
others insist is the only true definition, or something else (which I and
others refer to as macroevolution)?

> certain things should be observable in the current universe and other
> things should not.

So macroevolution.  All organisms on Earth derive from a single,
single-celled organism.  Once again you've resorted to circular reasoning to
assert the validity of the statement.  I've offered in a previous post at
least two alternative hypotheses which also appear to fit the observations.
Whether you consider either of them likely, is another thing altogether.
Hugh has indicated that science CANNOT make the assertion you appear to be
making, so who's right?  Anyway, testable to me would mean that we observe
an instance where one organism evolves into a quite different organism.
Sure, I may be asking for something that is impossible due to time
constraints.  That's unfortunate, but that is what science requires if one
subscribes to the doctrine of testability (or falsification) as a requisite
for scientific theories, laws, etc.

> Are you saying that this does not count as testable?

That is what I'm saying, yes.

> Or, are you saying that the big bang and evolution make no predictions
> about what should be observable in the current universe?

Predictions are new hypotheses that derive from an explanation and are
subject to testing themselves.  They are not tests of the original
explanation.  Their agreement with reality, however, would be evidence that
raises our degree of confidence in the original explanation PROVIDED there
are no other explanations that would lead to those same predictions.  Again,
I have to note that unless I'm am misunderstanding what you've written, you
aren't talking about predictions subsequent to explanation, but rather to
evidence used to construct the explanation itself.  Now if you predicted
that, as a consequence of evolutionary theory, the kangaroo would sprout
wings next year (very specific <g>) and it DID, then I'd be 99% convinced
since the alternatives I offered could not have led to that prediction!
Silly example, I know, but the point is that a prediction should involved
something not observed yet, and certainly not observations that led to the
explanation that you then use to "predict" the observations you have in
hand.