evolution as scientific methodlogy

[John Grehan]

I put out the following request out yesterday, but it may not have been
properly addressed to Taxacom. However, I received a response from
Curtis Clark to which I comment below.


At 07:00 PM 8/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm not sure whether you intended this for the list; if so, you can pass my
>response on.
>
>At 05:14 PM 8/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>With respect to the current postings on evolution and creation theory I
>>have
>> a question that I would like to pose. What examples would
>>people present to delinate evolutionary theory as scientific methodology?
>>This question is different from what people do to "prove" evolution. I am
>>interested to know what kind of research activities evolutionary theory
>>results in that would be impossible with a creation perspective, and how
>>these activities lead to new empirical insights (again, that a creationist
>>would not be able to make whether a geneticist, morphologist, ecologist,
>>biogeographer, systematist).
>
>All of comparative biology. Evolution provides a causation for the
>similarities among organisms, as well as a causation for their differences.
>And evolution makes predictions about similarities and differences as yet
>unknown.

I think the predictions about similarities and differences as yet
unknown may refer to methodology. So what predictions are generated
through what evolutionary methods? I emphasize that I am
looking for methodology and prediction that would be outside
the possiblities of a creation framework.
>
>I look to Linnaeus as an example of a truly scientific creationist. He
>understood that the variation within originally created species (what we
>translate as "accidental variation") must be of a fundamentally different
>nature that the "essential variation" that separated the species.

It seems to me that definitial approaches to speciation such as
the mate recognition concept, the biological species concept,
phylogenetic species concept, try to do the same thing. They
all look to an essential kind of variation that separates the species,
and other variation that does not ("accidental"?)/


>If one accepts that all organisms are kin (based on the copious evidence of
>that), the two types of variation are effectively united. To a comparative
>biologist working in an evolutionary framework, the existence of
>similarities between two species suggests that there will be other
>similarities.To a creationist, all similarities among species are the
>result of a single imponderable event outside the scope of scientific
>inquiry, so the existence of some similarities between any two species is
>no sure indicator that there should be others.

I cannot speak authoritatively on behalf of creationists, but my limited
understanding is that they could view the existence of some similarities
as an indicator that there should be others if they view biological form
as the expression of a particular plan of biological organization. In
which case there is really no methodological difference here.


>Evolution provides the rational for the distribution of characters. Study
>of variation in an evolutionary context has most often reinforced the
>hypothesis that all organisms are kin.

This does not describe evolution as a scientific methodology. It is one
possible comparison of philosophical frameworks.


>An off-the-top-of-my-head list of biological studies that *require* an
>evolutionary framework:

The studies referred to may require an evolutionary framework, but what
about them if anything makes them an evolutionary research program
as opposed to research programs that are simply given an evolutionary
interpretation?

>I think the reason "defenders of evolution" don't emphasize the scientific
>methodology is that, even though it totally permeates modern biology, most
>biologists are blind to it. I agree with you (I think) that this is not a
>good thing.

This is for me a most interesting observation. It agrees with my
perception, and
my view that the exclusion of the issue of methodology is a drastic weakness
in the arguments of evolutionists.

I am one of the few people, I think, who do not care whether creation is
science
or not, any more than I would agonize over that status for witchcraft which
appears to meet the falsification criterion. Instead, I am interested in which
research programs are progressive and which are regressive. Since
creation science is simply a reiteration of an assertion (creation) it appears
to be regressive. However, some evolutionary perspecitves also seem to
be regressive in this regard as well.

John Grehan