Andrea:
> experiments are reproducible, not theories. Scientific theories are never
> considered "true" or "objective", either. Theories are just provisionally
> *confirmed* (until they are eventually confuted) by the fact that they are
> *in accordance* with the (objective, reproducible) results of experiments.
> (And of course, experiments include such things like finding fossil bones,
> which too are objective - any observer can see them).
Thanks for clarifying the concept of "theory." However, shouldn't a
theory to be called scientific be, in principle, susceptible to confirmation
by experiment? Popper, who is often cited here as the last word in the
philosophy of science (and who I often disagree with) has openly
questioned whether evolution is a science at all because its assertions
are not potentially falsifiable. (The same charge can be made against
the MOQ, but the MOQ makes no claim to being scientific). In this
case, I think Popper has a point. The data used to support evolution are
neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of
species was a unique event. As for the bones you speak of, one of the
doubts cast upon the Darwinian version which posits long-tern gradual
changes is that there are few if any bones in the fossil record that can
be identified as intermediate between the older and the newer, otherwise
known as the "missing link" problem. Worse, as more bones are being
discovered, the gaps in the record are being confirmed. But I digress.
The point is that the Darwin Theory of Evolution is not a bona fide
scientific theory since it can't be experimentally proven one way or the
other.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST