evolution as scientific methodlogy

[John Grehan]

Curtis Clarke wrote

>The principle of common descent suggests that any two organisms share a
>body of similarities that have a single cause (their descent). This
>provides a hypothesis that other similarities have the same cause. For each
>similarity, that hypothesis can be falsified or supported. If it is
>supported, no additional cause need be sought or asserted for the
>similarity.

Since similarities do exist, and where known to exist before evolution,
I don't understand how these similarities describe evolutionary methodology.


>Creationists can't test the plan, because it can't be falsified.

And I don't see how evoltuion can be falsified either.


>I think you are nit-picking here. Every methodology has a philosophical
>framework.

I agree with this

 If one assumes descent with modification, the set of questions
>that are asked is different from the set asked by someone who assumes
>independent creation. Maybe I don't understand your use of the word
>"methodology".

By method I mean a series of sequential steps one would undertake to
discover new facts (as opposed to reiterrating known facts). I am aware
of such methodology in all the various fields of biology, but if I understand
you correctly the only methodology that is evolution is the assumption of
evolution as an explanatory framework.

When I was taught various disciplines as a student, including chemistry,
physics, and various branches of biology, I would be taught methodologies.
In evolution I was taught doctrine (of beliefs about evolution having taken
place and how it took place).

>
>I think you are missing a very big point here: these research programs
>wouldn't even exist in a creationist context, because they would make no
>sense.

This is what I am not sure of at present. Could you provide an example as you
did for the examples from chemistry? - i.e. what would creation theory
in evolutionary biology prevent in the discovery of facts about genetics,
ecology,
development etc?


>But it can be, and it was. The biology of the 18th and most of the 19th
>century was done by creationists, and we routinely honor them, at least in
>history chapters, for their accomplishments. Like most plant taxonomists, I
>can trace my academic "parentage" back to Linnaeus. I think he was totally
>on the wrong track, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing science.

Agreed. But I was referring to creation theory as a science, not whether
people who believed in creation were doing science or not.

>And I think it is an indication of just how slowly ideas change that it
>took nearly a century between Darwin and Hennig.

Less than a century  if Rosa is acknolwedged. But one could also argue that
Hennig does not represent anything much of an advance over Darwin.

>I wonder if you're not using this discussion as a dig at *specific*
>perspectives that you see as regressive. I'm sure we all put stuff in that
>category, but I think it is a mistake (and a common one) to judge a
>viewpoint by the competence of the people who espouse it.

I think its a valid judgement to make about research programs. Otherwise one
would not be able to make a choice. Yes, there are research programs in
evolution I consider regressive and I mention it to show that I am not
using this criterion soley against creation - whether its a science or not.
In making this judgement I am not, to my own understanding, making
this on the basis of the competence of people who espouse them, but
simply on whether or not the research programs achieve certain specified
criteria.

I look forward to more specifics on evolution as a research program.

John Grehan