Science and Organic Evolution

[Ken Kinman]

John,
    Well, I would certainly agree with you (and Dave, who DID mention
testing and verification) that hypotheses must be repeatedly tested, even
when they have passed enough testing to be widely regarded as "theory".
However, the anticipatory (predictive) quality of successful hypotheses and
theories can be either passive or active (implicit or explicit).
     For example, my hypothesis that protofeathers first developed on the
tail region of the dinosaurian ancestors of birds did NOT explicitly predict
how far back (phylogenetically) such structures would have arisen (the data
was insufficient at the time).  However, the discovery of the "hairy"-tailed
psittacosaur certainly added scientific evidence ("grist for my mill"), even
though I did not explicitly predict such structures would be found in
ornithischians.  My hypothesis implicitly predicted the possibility that
some early clades of dinosaurs would possess ONLY tail protofeathers, even
though it did not explicitly predict that this would include early
ornithischians.
     The same is true of many of my other hypotheses, whether the
predictions they provide are explicit or implicit.  My hypothesis that
bivalves were the first molluscs explicitly predicts that they never had
ancestors that possessed a radula.  However, there are a lot of implicit
predictions it might provide only after the fact (not explicitly predicted,
but supportive of the hypothesis once such evidence is discovered).
       I think the theory of evolution is similar in that it is constantly
being retested, whether its anticipation of presently unknown data is
explicit or implicit.   Of course, whether a hypothesis has attained the
status of a theory is in the eye of the beholders and their varying
interpretations of the available evidence.  Most of us regard evolution as a
theory, while most creationists insist it is a poorly tested hypothesis (and
most of them probably always will).  It is probably even more problematic
than arguing with tobacco "scientists" just how harmful smoking is to the
human body.  So it goes.
            -------- Ken Kinman
******************************************
>From: john grehan <jgrehan at ADELPHIA.NET>
>Reply-To: john grehan <jgrehan at ADELPHIA.NET>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Science and Organic Evolution
>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:23:59 -0500
>
>>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


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail