Quote:Do you know what you're talking about ? Natural selection is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.
So now all a theory needs in order to be considered scientific is some part of it that is scientific?
Quote:You say there are several examples where the fossil record remained unchanged - punctuated equilibria. So you're looking at part of the fossil record and not the overall fossil record which shows change. That's a bit precious, isn't it?
No. Just proving a point.
Quote:With respect to confimations being prevented from accumulating I think what is meant there is the reference to small mutations accumulating over time. If this could not be found then evolution would be falsified.
No it wouldn't. The evolutionists would just say you need to wait a bit longer. Most confirmation don't happen till puberty. It would never actually be disproved.
Quote:Creationism is a competing hypothesis, it offers the idea that life was as it is today from it's beginning. That would be a refutation if they or anyone could show it. You're characterisation of it is a straw man.
I just don't see how the theory of creationism somehow makes evolution scientific. Can you explain it so it makes sense?
Quote:That rabbits evolved in pre-cambrian times , died out and evolved again? Excuse me, if rabbits existed in Pre-cambrian times it would disprove evolution which holds that life at that time was less complex than a mammalian lifeforms which EVOLVED over time and are found in higher rock stratas.
I don't think the theory of evolution actually states that. The historical record can and will be simply chopped and changed as the evidence comes in. This has never disproved the theory of evolution, so I don;t see why it would in the future.
Quote:Popper's sophisticated falsification 'theory' of philosophy has largely been replaced by writers such as Thomas Kuhn, whose praises you have sung frequently, and who advocates a more balanced approach. Probabilistic Induction is one new paradigm that severely upsets the sacred cow of falsifiability.
I don't really see a contradiction between the two. They merely addressed the same question from different scales - like micro and macro economics. Not that I have read a lot of Popper's work, but people seem to insist my views are close to his.
Quote:The limitation of Popper's theory is that you need to be able to establish criteria for falsification. All data is subject to natural variation. If you had one or two points that didn't fall on the line, would that be regarded as falsification? How about 3 points?
That sounds like a poorly designed experiment to me. No philosophy of science will get around statistical problems. I am not saying a single experiment or a single point disproves a theory. It has to be repeatable. The disproof itself is not the undoing of the theory, but rather what follows - the loss of confidence in the scientific community. This is getting into Kuhn's territory, but again I don't see any contradiction with my views.
Quote:Your argument that Evolution should not be taught because it doesn't fit certain definitions of Scientific would imply that we should stop teaching a wide range of other things, particularly aspects of cosmology such as string theory.
Which particular aspects? I have seen a lot of theories that are indistuinguishable from science fiction and cannot be tested in any way. I have seen many that are scientific. I think this is a great way to reinforce the value of understanding science.
Quote:If you took that attitude practically no science would be taught.
All of it would be taught. Note that I am not saying it should not be taught, just as I am not saying that history, maths, English etc should not be taught.
Quote:Which barrow are you pushing exactly? Are you a Creationist? I somehow don't think so, but why single out Evolution?
This is where the issue first arose for me, and the only one that people take an interest in. If I argued that certain aspects of cosmology should not be taught in high school science classes, I would get blank stares. Also, many people's interest in the evolution vs creationsim argument leads them to loose sight of what science is. It's like they will sacrifice science for evolution.
Quote:“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. … The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”
I have never argued that natural selection is not scientific. I suspect you lead yourselves astray a bit in comparing me with Popper.
Quote:Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
I suspect you will find the explanation of the use of the term fact far less tortuous if you call them natural historians and use examples from the study of history.