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]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders



I think that it was McDermott who thoroughly muddied the waters of
this discussion by intorducing the term "testable," which is unforgivably
vague. What most of us insist on, for a theory to be viable, is that it
be falsifiable. Falsibiality is a far different proposition from
testability. We test Phlogiston theory every day, and it often passes the
tests. On the other hand, the theory has been falsified, so it has been
dropped and is no longer taught. String theory, which cannot rationally
be compared with the "theory of evolution" has not yet reached the stage
where it makes falsifiable predictions, so we physicists do not presently
include it among our theories about nature. Both the "big bang" theory
and the "theory of evolution" do make falsifiable predictions.


I will add that most of the proponents of ID (design, imcompetent or
otherwise) argue from positions of abysmal ignorance concerning the topics
that they argue about. For a readable introduction to modern evolutionary
biology, I recommend Caporale <Darwin in the Genome> (McGraw-Hill 2003).

Regards,
Jack



On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, R. McDermott wrote:

----- 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.


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley