evolution as scientific methodlogy

[Curtis Clark]

At 07:19 AM 8/15/99 -0400, Johne Grehane wrote:
>Curtis Clarke wrote
[...]
>>Creationists can't test the plan, because it can't be falsified.
>
>And I don't see how evoltuion can be falsified either.

A "lactating bird" would do it for me: the existence of a group of shared
features that supported a pattern of kinship not reconcilable with the
"accepted" pattern, and with both sets of data being solid enough that I
could not explain either away. Of course, "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence".

>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 had a similar experience. I'm sorry you weren't able to go beyond it.

>>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?

I already gave solid examples. You summarily dismissed them, and I see no
reason to give more.

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

Wait a minute. You demand evolutionary methodologies, and yet you assert
that just because creationists can do science, that doesn't show that
creation theory is a science. How else do we determine that? Doctrine,
perhaps?

>>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.

Even Hennig's detractors are remiss if they deny that the use of shared
homology to infer kinship is one possible direct consequence of Darwin's
theories. If anything, it would seem that it would have taken even less
time to develop if it were a trivial "non-advance".

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

Sorry, you won't be getting any more from me.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu