In Reply to: Ignore inadvertant post above. posted by rditmars on October 13, 2003 at 13:40:50:
all you have is 'evidence'.What exists, as evidenced by the articles I did read in this journal, is observation interpreted through evolutionary theory, not facts supporting it. Virtually any observation of relevant phenomena can be made to fit evolutionary theory. The same observation can be made to fit a theory of fiat creation as well. Epistomologically speaking, these two competing views exist on the same ground. Both are factually groundless Just-So stories used to explain observations of nature.
The fact that Darwin's mechanisms are unobservable does indeed remove his theory from the realm of fact and place in the realm of myth. How can it be otherwise? The very essence of the theory is not testable so how can we ever be sure it is true?
Contrary to your point, the mechanisms for evolution ceased to be debated almost immediately after the publication of -Origin- . It has been a non debatable point that random variation passed on by natural selection is THE means of evolution. Anyone who has suggested otherwise has been ridiculed (Goldschmidt, Grasse and Crick are prime examples). This is the present condition of evolution. It is a dogma, not a falsifiable theory and this, I believe, was Clark’s original point.
Thanks,
Rob
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- In the case of an unfalsifiable premise... - dado4 14:25:00 10/13/03 (5)
- Re: In the case of an unfalsifiable premise... - rditmars 15:06:45 10/13/03 (4)
- Re: In the case of an unfalsifiable premise... - dado4 17:04:36 10/13/03 (3)
- Well it was fun for a while.... - rditmars 18:20:29 10/13/03 (2)
- It boils down to what's comfortable doesn't it? - dado4 19:59:28 10/13/03 (1)
- Paluxy River Dinosaur footprints! - Pat D 17:38:04 10/18/03 (0)