Science and Organic Evolution

[john grehan]

>Dave Williams wrote:

>Thus, we have the theory of organic evolution. Without that theory, many
>facts that make no sense. It is simply the best explanation currently
>available for what we can easily see.

This might be ok as a point of view, and it is certainly a view I share,
but if the 'science' of evolution is simply its status as a
non-supernatural explanation (at least that's my inference from the
argument presented by Dave Williams), there seems to be little for
evolution to offer as a scientific research program - it is reduced to the
status of an explanatory view or philosophy that one attaches to one's
investigation of the real world. Evolution itself then only 'explains' what
is known rather than anticipating what is not already known (which would be
to give evolution the same operational status as creation theory and
constitute a degenerating research program according to the criteria
proposed by Lakatos). If this is the case (again I admit this is my
inference and Dave can correct me), then the 'science' of evolution is
something quite different from, for example, the 'science' of relativity
where the theory of relativity (as opposed to the theory of evolution) did
advance knowledge beyond what was already known through empirical observation.

John Grehan