More on evolution as doctrine

[john grehan]

Response to comment by Peter Rauch

> > ..." OK, so where does that leave evolution. Is evolution
> > simply a "way of understanding"?
>
>Of course. That way is called the "scientific" way. You do not
>expect every commentary, every instance of the use of some term
>of Science to immediately dive into an expository on "What
>Science Itself Is", do you?

Perhaps not, but what I was looking for in the web pages cited was some
direction on what those authorities regarded evolution as a science. If the
'science' of evolution is simply a particular understanding of existence
then it appears to be treated quite differently from other sciences where
the 'science' is characterized by research programs using specified
methodologies. As I raised before, without much result, there is little if
anything on the scientific constitution of evolution in terms of research
methodology. Every other science is method based (i.e. there are core
principles that delineate actions (methods) that determine what scientists
participating in the research program actually do and actually produce in
the way of knew knowledge (predicted from the theory itself rather than by
ad hoc inference from observation).

>If someone identifies an Issue, e.g,"Science vis a vis Non-science", or
>"Evolution vis a vis Other
>Stuff", must they also immediately present a full discourse on the issue?
I would at least expect to see the demarcation criteria being used.

John Grehan