Clearly, there is potential data that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist, then that would show that God as an explanation for the universe’s beginning is unnecessary. Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, it’s falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isn’t much of a test. The other examples are equally unpersuasive: “Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead.” I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following: maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory. Here’s the other example: “If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead.” Actually, we wouldn’t be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms.
The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an argument “philosophical” or “religious” means that the argument can never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of “science.” But if knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite series of causes to exist in reality, then I don’t care how many multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal. Just like I know there can’t be five married-bachelors in the next room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a pyrex tube.
Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.
Frank
On 8/3/05 1:21 PM, "Ed Brayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and failures of explanation.
I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing "designed to show how the theory fails to explain" something. It only means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that are testable, has long been falsified because it fails completely as an explanation for the data.
Ed Brayton
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
