Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: What is a scientific theory Message-ID: <1433@qubix.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:52:40 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.1433 Posted: Tue Oct 16 03:52:40 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 09:26:40 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix Lines: 53 Richard Carnes has presented Root-Bernstein's ideas on theories. Permit me to counter with those of Dr. John N. Moore, Professor (now Emeritus) of Natural Science at Michigan State, from Zola Levitt's _Creation: A Scientist's Choice_, p.94 Criteria for a Good Scientific Theory Below, rigorous criteria for identification of a proper scientific theory are provided. These criteria are quoted from an outstanding textbook for physical science. Qualifications 1 and 3 are very important to any conceptualization of first origins. Very critical is the fact that no "prior observations" are possible, since no man observed first origins, life, or humankind; nor is it possible to "check with experience by test" in any manner when objective considerations are given to first origins. Three qualification have already been cited: 1. A fruitful theory *correlates many separate facts*, particularly the important *prior observations*, in a logical preferably easily grasped structure of thought. 2. In the course of continued use it *suggests new relations* and stimulate directed research. 3. The theory permits us to deduce predictions that *check with experience* by test, and it is useful for clearing up puzzling difficulties and solving practical problems. The history of science has shown that a good theory frequently has, in addition to the three attributes above, one or more of the following three: 4. When the smoke of initial battle has lifted, the more successful of two rival theories often turns out to be the one that is simpler in the sense that it involves *fewer basic assumptions or hypotheses*. 5. A theory is more readily accpetable to contemporary scientists if its *postulates or assumptions are plausible*. 6. Successful theory is flexible enough to grow, and to *undergo modifications* where necessary. [From Chapter 8, "On the Nature of Scientific Theory," in _Foundation of Modern Physical Science_ by Horton and Holler (pub. by Addison-Wesley).] On the next page, Moore continues: "On the basis of the previous list of criteria for discerning a proper theory, is the so-called theory of evolution scientific? No. In no way are any prior observations of the first stages of the universe, of first life, or the first humankind possible." For these and other reasons, the proper terminology is MODELS of origins, whether creation or evolution. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.