Syndicate
User login
Navigation
Darwin, pseudoscience and irony...
The Evolutionists: the Struggle for Darwin's Soul, Richard Morris, pg 97...
"Dennet and Gould may be the most vocal participants in the controversies that are currently going on. But they are not the only ones. The question of how rigidly Darwin's theory of natural selection should be adhered too is one that has been coming up again and again in recent years, in a number of different ways. No one (except perhaps those who practice the pseudoscience of creationism) entertains any thoughts of overthrowing Darwin's theory. But there are numerous scientists who believe that something should be added to the theory." (Emphasis mine, misspelling in original.)
In describing a scientific theory as a "holy cow", it is the creationists who are pseudo scientists?
This may pose a philosophy-of-science question... Is a theory disprovable if the general scientific attitude is to not overthrow it?
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
Very malleable theory for a "fact, fact, fact."*
Saw this story yesterday. It was on yahoo but I can't find that link. This is the same story text however. I wanted to find the exact one I read because of a partucular quote. Nonetheless, if evolution makes certain predictions, and those predictions are later found to be erroneous, evolutionists simply adjust their theory to fit the facts. I say it can't be falsified because it can't be held to account for it's failed predictions. But evolution failing another test is not really news, though I'm happy the story was reported. What struck me was the bogus claim you hear so often in the intellectual wasteland that is the atheist blogroll, "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process." This is from a person who is, I suspect, reasonably intelligent. In a story about scientific findings she not only must be sure we religious types don't go squealing into the streets with glee, she has to take an uninformed pot-shot at religion for good measure.
* Michael Ruse driving the point home. You know Michael, you had me at fact, fact!
I agree
I notice this quite a bit, and it is a point that Johnson makes forcefully in "Darwin on Trial." On one hand, I can understand that science is about "refining" to a certain extent. But on the other hand, it eventually gets to the point where the scientific process has ceased to be implemented.
For instance, Darwinism has always predicted that we should eventually see a long line of small changes in the fossil record. It should be a continuous thing. It was such a staunch prediction that Darwin hung his theory on it. But we have never found that.
At one time, it was blamed on "chance"... i.e. that the chance against fossilization was working against the fossil record (ironic huh?). Then we began to get more creative explanations that involve migration, etc... This is not the scientific process. This is not based on new data. This is nothing more than trying to double-talk out of failed predictions.
Again, it is plainly stated, no one is willing to "overthrow" the theory. They will just keep tweaking it until it matches any conceivable data presented.
Good post, LB. I appreciate the link.