Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: To Lew Mammel, Jr. re Popper/Evolution
Message-ID: <1082@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 14:07:31 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1082
Posted: Sun Mar 10 14:07:31 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 20:53:05 EST
References: <1027@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 67
Xref: linus net.religion:5469 net.origins:753

Ken writes:

> 
> I stand by my point, that as Popper says, evolution is not a 'scientific'
> theory, but a metaphysical one!  Now that is NOT to say that it is untrue!!
> But only to say that it is not something we can 'prove'...
.
.
.
>                            ...  Evolution per se is not testable.  Let's be
> clear about what it is that we are talking about here.  Evolution in the broad
> sense, from molecules to man, is not absolutely testable!  So what!  Neither, 
> as you so helpfully point out by quoting Feynman, is Newton's mechanics!!!
.
.
.  
> Please understand, the postings were not meant to 'debunk' evolution per se.
> Only those who don't understand the place of science and metaphysics in
> scientific effort.  Remember I quoted from Medawar's book, THE LIMITS OF
> SCIENCE?  Well, many believers in evolution don't understand the limits of
> the theory of evolution.It is SO broad a theory in its metaphysical form that
> it can't be tested!  Falsified.  Everything can be explained within it. 
 
 The fact that a theory cannot be proven does not mean that it is automatically
non-scientific. A good theory should contain implications that are
testable. For example, consider the theory of the expanding universe. This
currently is not possible to reproduce under laboratory conditions, but it is
testable in the sense that it would be falsified if someone proved that
our interpretation of the red-shift, as indicating recession, was just
the opposite of what was actually happening. The same is true for 
evolution; should reptiles, in general, be found to have appeared after
mammels, then evolution would be incorrect. This would happen if all those
engaged in carbon dating etc. were to have gotton things backwards :-)
One might complain that evolution was first proposed to explain these
very observations and hence they cannot be used to test it. This
is true, but two things need be considered here :a) evolution is then
scientific since it relies on observation, b) if you see any shortfalls
with it then propose either a modified version, or, an alternative that
explains the same data set but contradicts evolution. These two 
are in fact indicative of evolution's scientific nature.
 
.  
> It seems to me evolution is based upon naturalism/materialism.  That is,
> there was a time when there were no mammals so they HAD to come from the
> reptiles, there was a time when there were no reptiles, so they HAD to come
> from the fish, etc. Personality/consciousness MUST be explainable by chemicals
> in the brain because there is NOTHING else TO explain it.  But what are the
> foundations of the metaphysical choices here??  Remember, materialism IS a
> metaphysical choice. With all the 'goodness' and limitations of a metaphysical
> choice.  We all HAVE to make them, the opposite of having a metaphysical
> framework is not no framework but merely an unexamined one.

What has personality/consciousness got to do with evolution? They may have
a basis in naturalism/materialism. So What? That says nothing about
evolution.

> I wouldn't say Newtonian mechanics is the "hardest of hard sciences", rather
> that math/logic is.  But even that, as far as we can currently tell is based
> upon assumptions about reality - a metaphysic.  Read Morris Kline, MATHMATICS:
> THE LOSS OF CERTAINTY, 1980.  He identifies FOUR maths.

Mathematics and logic are not sciences. They are loosely referred to as such
because of their precision. They rely on axioms, not observations, and
therefore can in no way be considered sciences in discussions of this
kind.

Padraig Houlahan.