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.