Posted on 11/11/2005 9:27:07 PM PST by MplsSteve
Evolution makes predictions about what should be found. Therefore it can be tested. It is an emprical science, as much as geology, cosmology, and archeology are.
I will agree that having such controls for radiometric dating is helpful. The fact remains, though, that no matter how many samples one examines, there is no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown factors.
If one person conducts the shaker experiment by casting a set of spheres of different diameters from the same material, another conducts it by machining spheres of different diameters from the same material, another conducts it by casting spheres of different diameters from different alloys chosen to net the same weight, and another machines sheres of different diameters from such alloys, it's pretty unlikely that there would be anything about the smaller spheres--other than their size--which caused them to fall to the bottom. If all the spheres were machined from the same size blank, it would be plausible that for some reason machining a sphere longer would make it fall faster; if all the spheres were cast, it would be plausible that the smaller mold somehow concentrated the molecular structure in the sphere so as to make it fall faster. But by using different means of manufacture, such possibilities can be eliminated.
In as much as Evolution merely predicts the rate of change in life forms I will grant that it is an empirical science and subject to testing. However, Evolution is more and purports to present an explanation of why and how that change takes place. This part of the study is not testable nor observable, therefore this part of the theory, random mutation coupled with survival of the fittest, is not an empirical science. It is only conjecture, scientific conjecture perhaps, but only conjecture nonetheless.
Keep the debate at the college level and out of K-12 science.
Yes, but only within a very small range. The amount of change that is required for Evolution is of a much greater magnitude, especially when simultaneous change must occur to be functional. I can breed dogs but it will always be a dog. That minor variations accumulated over millions of years is the cause of new forms of life is mere speculation. It might be true but is unprovable through empirical science.
Using the tools of science to evaluate the past is fundamentally different from using them to evaluate the future. If a corpse is found in a room with a pistol whose odor is similar to that of firearms that have been fired recently, and the corpse contains a bullet with a funny little nick that happens to coincide with a defect in the pistol's barrel, and there is a shell casing on the floor which is of the same manufacture as the bullet and markings in some grease on the breach face mirror those on the casing, it's pretty likely that that firearm was recently used to fire the bullet that ended up in the corpse, and that the corpse was shot at that location. On the other hand, it would be possible that the corpse was shot somewhere else with that firearm, and that someone moved both the corpse and the shell casing.
It's even possible (though unlikely) that another firearm was used, and the barrel/slide transplanted onto the firearm the police found, or that someone deliberately produced identical nicks on two different barrels, or any number of other possibilities.
If everything fit the simplest theory (person shot where gun was found), there would probably be no particular reason not to believe it. But if something was discovered that didn't fit, there'd be no reason to believe with certainty the next alternate theory that was formulated.
An honest appraisal of the historical sciences would recognize that very little is really 100% certain. Archaeologists need to consider that some of the writings that have been used as the basis for our knowledge of ancient civilizations may have been in fact entertaining fictions at the time they were written. Cosmologists need to consider that objects may have passed through what we now consider the "known universe" at various times, disrupting its state but leaving no direct evidence of their existence.
The claim that objects in a vacuum within a uniform gravity field will accellerate uniformly, within a certain degree of precision, if not operated upon by other forces is a fact. You can perform thousands of experiments on the subject and get the same result. The claim that Egypt was once ruled by Phaoroahs is a very strong conjecture--either someone ruled over the land and had enough power and influence to get things like the pyramids built, or else some totally bizarre phenomenon unknown to western civilization caused them to come unto existence.
The notion that evolution could cause a horse and a donkey to be descended from a common ancestor via no mechanism other than random mutation and selective breeding would be a plausible hypothesis. The notion that a mosquito and an orangutan could have come from a common ancestor via no mechanism other than random mutation and selective breeding, however, seems a bit less plausible. Even if genetics were to suggest that two species are likely to share a common ancestor, it would not imply that there was not some, as yet totally understood, phenomenon involved in addition to the processes comprising "natural selection". Indeed, it would seem that there have to be some such processes involved. If one wants to say it's divine intervention, or aliens from the planet Altair IV, or cosmic pixie dust, or whatever, it's all the same. Once a theory reaches a point where "well, we don't really know how things got from here to here", all bets are off.
Then they should stop teaching evolution also.
It is testable and therefore is empirical science. For example a human skeleton found in the cambrian would falsify the explaination that humans arose through minor variations over millions of years.
Someone who believes in the Great Flood must, of necessity, believe that some forms of life exist today that did not exist then. There are simply too many forms of life today for them all to have fit into a wooden boat of the dimensions given.
However, a certain degree of evolution (e.g. saying that certain varieties of cat share a common ancestor even though they can't interbreed) would make the Ark story somewhat sensible: if one wants to populate a planet with a variety of life, one need not start with every imaginable variation but may instead start with a smaller "basis" from which other forms might be derived.
BTW, one thing historical scientists in many earth-centered fields (and nearly all human-centered ones) need to recognize is that some people and cultures over the years have deliberately tried to alter apparent history. Any honest scientist needs to be mindful of such possibilities--not only the possibility of 'fake history' being generated in modern times, but also the possibility of fake history having been generated in ancient times.
If I claim that the current through a resistor will be proportional to the voltage, not only is it possible that such claim might be disproven if false, it is basically certain. While it is true that many of the claims posed by the historical sciences might turn out to be provably false, there remains the very real possibility that they might be false but in such fashion as can never be proven.
Suppose I hand you a box of cross-cut shredded paper and tell you that it contains half of the shreddings from an accurate copy of the "novel" Gatsby (which is notable for its non-use of the letter "e"). If examination of the shreddings reveals that some of the pieces contain the letter "e", that would constitute proof that the shreddings are not what I claim. If examination of the shreddings reveals that none of the pieces contain the letter "t", that would also disprove my claim. On the other hand, no amount of analysis would be able to prove my claim to be true, and it is possible that my claim could be false and yet no amount of analysis would be able to disprove it.
didn't allow themselves to be indoctrinated by the public school system.
Yes, we don't want those evil scientists to get their clutches on our hapless youth, spreading their poisonous physics, chemistry and biology heresies to another generation. The bible is all they need in today's world!
As is true with all scientific theories and laws, whether within historical sciences or not. Ohms law could be false in a way that could never be shown. Science is a method to try and get as close to the truth as possible, it can't actually get all the way there.
On the other hand, no amount of analysis would be able to prove my claim to be true, and it is possible that my claim could be false and yet no amount of analysis would be able to disprove it.
While you can't ever prove the hypothesis that the book is Gatsby, you have already put it through two tests that could have falsified it (finding an 'e' or a 't'). It passed those tests, and so you can have more confidence in the hypothesis. A rival hypothesis which has not been tested to such a degree is therefore inferior, and a rival hypothesis which cannot be tested should be thrown out right away. That methodology helps to reach the most likely explaination.
Common descent (and through that evolution) has passed many tests that could have falsified it to a level where it is considered beyond doubt. Rival explainations to evolution have either not withstood testing, or avoid testing by being untestable (ie ID) and therefore are not at the same level.
So true. The Bible was all they needed in yesterday's world, today,s world and tomorrow's world. Glad you realize that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.