[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revisionism
> Isn't one of those criteria that something be observable? Evolution
> isn't observable, and hasn't met all the criteria set forth by the
> scientific method.
In this regard, I think evolutionary science is perhaps more like history.
Past events cannot be observed; they can only be reconstructed on the
basis of the evidence that they have left behind.
But evolutionary science *can* predict what sort of evidence you'll find,
from the nearly identical DNA of humans and chimpanzees to the
geographical distribution of fossilized lifeforms.
> BTW, Creationism falls prey to the same thing. This was my point- both
> sides, creationists and humanists, are proponents of theory as fact.
Why do you assume that creationists can't be humanists? Please let's not
confuse categories; humanism is a philosophy, not a branch of science.
> > 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
> > facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested
> > or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about
> > natural phenomena.
>
> You can't test evolution= theory.
Actually, in some regards, you can. If it had turned out that humans and
chimps had vastly different DNA (instead of the 98.6% identical DNA that
we do have), for example, that would have falsified the idea that humans
and chimps were very closely related, in evolutionary terms.
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: