Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

quote:

---

Two points.

---

quote:

---

First, while astrology is considered a pseudo-science today, I would not say that it was pseudo-science at the time.

---

Yes. That's exactly what I've been getting at.

quote:

---

But regardless, even if he held some opinions that derived from astrology, his technique and method were classic science just as practiced today.

---

Which is exactly what I've been saying: science can emerge from a psuedo-scientific inspiration.

quote:

---

He made observation and his conclusions were based on the evidence gathered.

---

Yes. Exactly.

quote:

---

He went a step further and subjected his assertions to independent peer review. He published his findings, made his tools available to others and subjected his ideas to criticism.

---

Noting some minor exceptions, I generally very much agree.

quote:

---

If we look at the general output of his work we find the same techniques used in much that he did, from drawing to mathematics to paralax; all show that he used the classic scientific method.

---

Amen brother.

quote:

---

remember, alchemy and astrology were simply wrong.

---

Alchemy -- mostly wrong.Astrology -- totally wrong.

quote:

---

It's not that they were pseudo-sciences at the time, given the knowledge, techinques and equipment of the period.

---

Indeed, they were considered "authentic science" at the time based on their current level of knowledge.

quote:

---

And as they were falsified, they were dropped.

---

Yes, by using the scientific method they were effectively falsified (or significantly modified in alchemy's case).

quote:

---

It was only when they WERE falsified that they moved from the realm of science to pseudo-science.

---

Exactly.Only in retrospect, as they were further and further contrasted from modern knowledge, could they be considered pseudo-science.

If what you're saying is that, there may come a time when the expanding scope of our body of evidence contradicts rather than supports evolution; and at that time continued support of evolutionary theory is unscientific particularly in the light of a competing future theory that works better - I don't think anyone will disagree with you.That's really the neat thing about science - expanding knowledge leaves theories in the dust, even the ones we support so stridently. No theory is truly immune from the passage of time, or more accurately, our ever-expanding knowledge about the universe.It's really quite romantic in a way. (In the meantime, however, evolution is still the most accurate model we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-14-2005 10:52 PM

I don't think we have enough samples to conclude this in the way you have expressed it. Not yet anyway.Science as practiced today is less than 500 years old. (One might argue more like half that but it has been tightened up in increments to a real line might be hard to draw).This is one reason why I disagree with calling astrology pseudo science. It is realy PRE-science.I also disagree with saying that it was the foundation in any way, for astronomy. The observations where partially used in astronomy. But the observations are NOT astrology. Astrology was more like (in todays parlance) a 'theory' about how things behaved. It is simply wrong and none of it made it into astronomy.Now, back to the more immediate topic.From Newton's laws of motion onward the scientific theories that have been supported the most stridently and with the most evidence have not been totally "left in the dust". Instead they are turned onto special cases or modified. Newton's mechanics are still useful even though in a technical sense they are "wrong".As another couple of centuries goes by I think that we will find this is the pattern ( I may be accused of "scientism" here or just wild-eyed optimism). The best theories will be, in some form, intact but not all "correct".What will this look like? Wish I could guess.So far it seems that Darwinism is going to stay intact. However, it may turn out that neo-darwinism may have to undergo further refinement. By that I wildly speculate that the synthesis that beings genetic ideas in will be modifed as we understand how complex that all is.

quote:

---

If what you're saying is that, there may come a time when the expanding scope of our body of evidence contradicts rather than supports evolution; and at that time continued support of evolutionary theory is unscientific particularly in the light of a competing future theory that works better - I don't think anyone will disagree with you.

---

Thank you.Again, just for clarification, I'm looking at the overall paradigm or inspiration behind the search for truth -- not so much the experiments that were performed to test the hypothesis.In other words, I'm looking at the theory itself which inspired people to search -- almost more than the evidence itself. As noted many times, Galileo seems most likely to have been inspired by his pursuit for astrological knowledge when he yeilded valid astronomical observations that confirmed Coperinicus.The raw data that he produced was kept because it was valid within astronomical circles even though the theory (paradigm, inspiration, impulse, whatever you like to call it) of astrology was ultimately left behind -- and left for pseudo-scientists to practice outside and separately from the discipline of astronomy.Even more so, just to be clear, I personally don't think that certain aspects of the theory of evolution will ever be completely undermined regardless of any future evidence that is brought forth. Various evolutionary claims are observable, demonstrated, and repeatedly reproduciable facts.For example, when I browse talk origins from time to time, I periodically come across the following words written by R. C. Lewontin (they are broken down into stages to show the development of his very logical sequence):

quote:

---

R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)

---

quote:

---

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

​

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

​

It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

​

It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

​

It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.

---

All these above observations are clearly, repeatedly, demonstrated facts that I have no doubt will ever be drastically modified by any future evidence. While it may be true that future evidence could possibly tweak these statements slightly (and I admit I may be wrong), I still nonetheless seriously doubt that there will be any major revisions to the initial clarity of these points above.Having said this, however, as Lewontin continues with his list of facts, the last two seem to be less factual than the previous observations.For example, the very next fact reads as follows:

quote:

---

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

---

Actually...no...this isn't a fact.First of all, if abiogenesis is correct, then not all living forms come from previous living forms -- especially since the first living cells are theorized under abiogenesis to have somehow arose from non-living organic compounds when the proper conditions were met.Admittedly, abiogenesis, being the more tentative of the two theories, is more about the origin of life -- whereas evolution, on the other hand, is technically more definitively about what happened after life arose on earth -- nonetheless, these two statements seem to contradict each other at least as far as our inital origins are concerned.Reiterated again, if one of the various theories of abiogeneis is correct, then it is simply not a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.Likewise, when we come to the next fact as presented by Lewontin, we see another possible error cropping into the logical sequence.It reads as follows:

quote:

---

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.

---

But if one has already noted that all living forms may not have actually arose from other living forms, how does one go one step further and definitively conclude that it is a "fact" that all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different?

quote:

---

No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

---

There seems to be a few gaps in the logical sequence here -- and one doesn't have to invoke Scriptures to take note of it either.

quote:

---

That's really the neat thing about science - expanding knowledge leaves theories in the dust, even the ones we support so stridently. No theory is truly immune from the passage of time, or more accurately, our ever-expanding knowledge about the universe.

---

I agree -- and this is why I truly love science.But this brings me back to my original statement said long ago in the OP of this thread:

quote:

---

After having reviewed the history of the development of science, and praying strenuously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with what Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system once was -- that the theory of evolution is still emerging from psuedo-science.

​

When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.

​

In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.

​

Similarly (in my opinion):

​

When Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our biological life. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of speciation found within the various eco-systems. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Darwin was initially correct in determining that evolution was indeed the mechanism by which species could diversify, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evoltuion was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms -- and it will take some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction can be clearly discerned.

​

In Darwin's theory, the smaller claim is certainly true -- but the larger claim, however, may possibly not be so.

---

quote:

---

It's really quite romantic in a way. (In the meantime, however, evolution is still the most accurate model we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth.)

---

Remember: I don't think that the theory of evolution cannot account for the speciation of life on earth -- because I think that evolution is a fact. This is to say, I feel that it is the best scientific theory based on totally naturalistic causes according to our current level of knowledge.In regards to the above quote comparing Galileo's theory of heliocentrism to Darwin's theory of evolution, I'm not stating it as a fact. I'm stating it as a risky prediction -- and it's a risky prediction that is based on the previous developments of science where the initial grander claims of the pseudo-scientific theories were scientically proven ultimately incorrect even though the peripheral minor claims of the scientific experimentation conducted were indeed ultimately beneficial and condusive to further research within authentically scientific fields.

That's very interesting. I am starting to wonder who you really are.I had not seen that series of statements from Richard before.I had had lunch with him at the Statler Hotel on the Cornell Campus some couple of years after that was written and after reading the DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST with quite keen interest ( especially concerning the clear confindence the he and Levin had in presenting HOW math relates to biochange).I came off that lunch with the UNDERSTANDING ( we never got around to discussing the maths much) that Dr. Lewontin had no mental space/place for the different FORM of a snake tail different than a fish tail.So now after seeing the errors in his way (by comparing what you said and what I experienced from the man himself) I have no doubt that he was making the same mistake to me in 84? as he did in print in 81.Thanks for clearing that up. He must reason that coupled differential equations without deep issues in topology are enough to understand EVOLUTIONARY FORM MAKING!! It looks like smoothness or softness got the better of him.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-15-2005 08:31 AM

quote:

---

Again, just for clarification, I'm looking at the overall paradigm or inspiration behind the search for truth -- not so much the experiments that were performed to test the hypothesis.

---

Perhaps it's because I haven't read the thread carefully enough, but you seem to be to be advancing two rather different ideas. One is that the inspiration for a scientific theory may later prove to be incorrect or useless for science, as Galileo's astrology turned out to be. The other is that some large claims within a theory can turn out to be wrong, even while smaller claims turn out to be correct, as Galileo's heliocentric model of the universe proved to be wrong. I think it's important to distinguish the two points, since they have different practical implications. I don't care much, at least as a scientist, the extent to which Darwin's ideas rose out of the general philosophical and economic background of the time. I care a great deal whether the hypothesis of universal common descent is wrong.First, a comment about terminology: I don't find it at all useful to introduce the word "pseudoscience" here. Astrology today is pseudoscience, but it was not in Galileo's day. I don't know enough about the period to say whether astrology was treated scientfically or was simply the intellectual matrix in which scientists worked, but in neither case is there anything to be gained by projecting modern assessments of astrology back onto that period. The word for ideas held by scientists that later turn out to be wrong is "wrong"; "pseudoscientific" describes the methods used in exploring an idea, not whether the idea is right or not.On your more specific point, about whether large claims about common descent are correct or not, I'd have to say that the evidence that has accumulated since Darwing has been massive and overwhelmingly in favor of common descent being correct. (Whether common descent traces back to exactly one ancetral life form is difficult to determine, but that proposal wasn't advanced by Darwin.) Certainly, no alternative explanation for the genetic relatedness between current living organisms has been offered.

quote:

---

That's very interesting. I am starting to wonder who you really are.

---

Is this a good thing?I'm not really anyone special -- certainly not anyone that would be recognized within the scientific field.Who do you think I am?

quote:

---

It seems to me that your "pattern" represents a very selective view.

---

I admit I could very well be innacurately selecting the improper analogy for this discourse. However, I think I've laid out a fairly solid foundation for the possibility of drawing this general conclusion.

quote:

---

In the case of heliocentricity the "larger claim" is essentially a hold-over from the pre-existing view.

---

Yes -- a pre-existing view that had its original basis in Ptolemy's cosmology.And why did Ptolemy engage in his observations?Ellie Crystal appears to outline Ptolemy's reasons for engaging in his observations fairly well:

quote:

---

Ptolemy worked from the data of past astrologers to map over one thousand stars. He compiled a list of 48 constellations, and, for the most part, described the longitude and latitude lines of the earth. He was a believer that the earth was the center of the universe and worked to advance this theory. His effort in this area was in his thirteen volume work called the Almagest.

---

She then proceeds to outline Ptolemy's thoughts based on his own words recorded within his own works:

quote:

---

The Ptolemaic system is explained why some planets seemed to move backwards for periods of time in their orbit around earth. He theorized that each planet also revolved in a smaller circle as well as a larger one. This was called the "epicycle." This theory would survive for 1400 years, until it was finally accepted that the earth was itself another planet in orbit around the sun.

---

She then outlines Ptolemy's thoughts as he clearly expressed them from his individual works -- the reason why he was trying to understand the orbits of the planets in the first place:

quote:

---

The first book defined Ptolemy's reasoning for practicing astrology as well as astronomy, for by this time, there were many who opposed astrology. He said that it should not be abandoned merely because there are a few people who abuse it. This book also deals with the various alignments of planets, the moon, and the sun. Ptolemy describes in detail which positions are favorable and which are not. He also explained the signs, when they begin, and why they begin there.

​

The second book of the Tetrabiblos describes astrology as it relates to countries. Ptolemy makes the point that astrological events of countries and race supersede those of the individual. He details which planets rule over which country, and makes the distinction between human signs and animal signs. He notes that human signs cause things to happen to humans and animal signs affect animals. Finally, Ptolemy explains how the planets affect earth. For example, Saturn was thought to cause cold, floods, poverty, and death. Mars caused war and drought. Comets and shooting stars were thought to also affect the weather.

​

The third book dealt with the individual. The Tetrabiblos examined conception and birth, saying that it was better to work with the conception date and that this date should be known by observation. Several key factors were involved with this aspect of astrology. The sign that was rising at the time of conception, the moon's phase, and the movements of the planets were all taken into consideration. The father's influence was shown through the sun and Saturn, while the mother's was shown through the moon and Venus.

​

Finally, the forth book of the Tetrabiblos handled matters of occupation, marriage, children, travel, and 'houses' of the zodiac. The particular angles of various planets were used to calculate these things.

---

If my "pattern" represents a very selective view, it seems odd that the origins of astronomy are so deeply engrained within layer upon layer of pseudo-scientific astrological thinking.My point is not that being inspired by pseudo-science is bad.My point is that the inspiration of pseudo-scientific thinking has often, contrary to claims of the opposite, been the impulse to look more deeply into the nature of the universe.This can be both bad and good. It is especially bad when pseudo-science is being employed to validate pseudo-science.But whenever true science is employed when testing their pseudo-scientific hypothesis, the pseudo-science can (and has) led to the emergence of truly scientific discoveries.

quote:

---

It is a smaller step to move from holding that the Earth is the centre of the universe to the idea that the sun is, than it would be to even move to the idea that our solar system does to hold a privileged position let alone to the idea that there is no real centre.

---

Yes. Exactly.It definitely is a smaller step to move from holding that the earth is the centre of the universe to the idea that the sun is.Likewise, it definitely is a vastly larger step to even move to the idea that our solar system does not hold a privileged position let alone to the idea that there is no real centre.The minor claim of Galileo proved to ultimately be true -- but the greater claim of Galileo fell far from the original prediction. In other words, the greater prediction ultimately failed with more observations over time and further research conducted in regards to these new observations.Not only did Galileo and company not have the precise enough tools and knowledge to accurately discern this greater distinction within their respected eras, they generally hadn't even thought of the theoretical possibility of the "solar system" as being something distinct within the greater Milky Way galaxy -- or that galaxies formed clusters or superclusters of galaxies -- or that clusters and superclusters of galaxies (with potentially billions of solar systems) made up the entirety of the universe.It was simply totally beyond their scope to discern exactly how it all worked out -- because all they had was a simple "working model" of geocentricity (and later, with Copernicus, heliocentricity) fundamentally based on Ptolemy's astrological paradigm, a paradigm based on phenomenological observations coupled with a pseudo-scientific inspiration to search for the truth.[/b]

quote:

---

The larger claims of Newtonian mechanics would presumably be to hold that the theory was universal. Yet to a very large extent this is true - it is only under some conditions that we must resort to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

---

And yet, as John Charles Webb Jr. points out, in Isaac Newton's universe there were only three dimensions: length, breadth and width. This is to say, length, breadth and width were considered to be "constants" (unchanging) and the only variable was motion.It is interesting to note that these three dimensions could not be interpreted by elementary two dimensional geometry -- and that Newton created calculus for this very reason. Here is clearly an example of someone generating a truly scientific method of determining comlex data based on faulty assumptions that the universe only worked in three physical dimensions.The concept of time, in Newton's universe, was simply a measuring device which Newton called a "duration" -- not something which could be physically and tangiably warped by gravitational fields.Furthermore, the transmission of light, in Newton's cosmology, was considered instantaneous if I recall corectly. The later implications of the discovery that light had a rapid yet ultimately finite velocity totally changed how people viewed the universe. Whereas in Newton's era the light from something 1,000 light years away was beleived to be immediately experienced in "real time" -- so that one could claim that the whole universe moved as a single entity -- yet it is now known today that light travels only roughly 300,000 kilometers per second in a vaccuum.The difference between an infinite velocity and a velocity of merely 300,000 kps is still an infinite difference. In Newton's time one could reasonably look at the stars and think that everything was created less than 6000 years ago -- since the light was assumed to be reaching us instantaneously. However, knowing that light is limited in velocity, this knowledge alone almost totally demolishes any arguments for a young universe.In addition to all this, Newton's own search for truth was again based on pseudo-science. A strange yet reclusive figure, Isaac Newton was a Christian who studied the Scriptures daily and believed that God created everything, including the Scriptures themselves.He believed that the Scriptures were true in every respect -- and throughout his life he continually tested Scriptural truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science and never observed a contradiction, at least according to his many biographers.Newton's writings reflected his belief that his scientific work was a method by which to reinforce belief in Scriptural truth. After he completed his monumental Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he began to devote more and more of his time to researching the Scriptures, eventually writing a book he believed unlocked the prophecies contained in Daniel and the Apocalypse, two Scriptural books which he viewed as intertwined.The great bulk of his writing went unpublished -- even though according to one writer, Newton believed that a scientist who had the ability to explain the workings of the world and did not explain and share it with mankind, was denying God one form of adoration.Admittedly, as John Maynard Keynes noted, Newton’s writings showed him to be rather eccentric in his Christian theology. For example, at a time when the trinity was more or less accepted as fact in theological circles, Newton wrote voluminously to support his belief that the theory was fraudulent.Here is what Keynes had to say about Newton:

quote:

---

. . . (Newton) looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almightyjust as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibnitz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

---

So, again, although Newton certainly employed authentic science in his search for the truth, he was nonetheless certainly inspired by pseudo-science in the form of Scriptures to search even more for the truth -- and he beleived that the Scriptures held the key which unlocked the truth.To be continued...This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-15-2005 10:55 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:05 AM

quote:

---

Likewise chemical elements are universal. We sometimes discover or more usually synthesise elements predicted by the theory but not known in nature but a "different periodic table" is the stuff of bad (very bad) SF.

---

Yes...and in determining a more valid approach to "chemistry", the world of science owes a great deal to the pseudo-scientific impulses behind Francis Bacon's genuine science. The founder of modern science was a Christian that beleived in the pseudo-scientific Scriptures -- and the foundation of his thinking was solidly rooted in pseudo-scientific Christian doctrine.A recent book made the connection between Bacon and the Scriptures clear. John Henry, a science history professor at Edinburgh University, has just written (2002) a biography of Bacon called Knowledge is Power: How Magic, the Government and an Apocalyptic Vision Inspired Francis Bacon to Create Modern Science.Henry claimed that Sir Francis Bacon, who according to traditional wisdom invented modern science, was motivated by magic, government, and apocalyptic vision.In this sense, "magic" is read "Christian faith", "government" is read "knowledge for practical good of mankind", and "apocalyptic vision" read a literal belief in the prophecy of Daniel 12:4:

quote:

---

Many will go to and fro, and knowledge will be increased

---

In a review of the book in the August 22, 2002 issue of Nature, Alan Stewart states:

quote:

---

Bacon firmly believed that he was living in the era in which the scriptures predicted that knowledge would increase beyond all recognition. Had not the past decades seen crucial advances in learning, warfare and navigation, in the form (respectively) of the printing press, gunpowder and the magnetic compass, he asked? Part of his Instauratio Magna was entitled Parasceve, the Greek word for preparation, but particularly the day of preparation for the Sabbath, the ultimate Sabbath of the Day of Judgement. What else can the prophet mean... in speaking about the last times? Bacon asked rhetorically in his Refutation of Philosophies in 1608. Does he not imply that the passing to and fro or perambulation of the round earth and the increase or multiplication of science were destined to the same age and century?

---

Stewart continues,

quote:

---

Perhaps the most compelling section of the book deals with Bacon's ‘magic’, by which Henry means religion. Here he makes a more convincing case than many for the profoundly religious underpinning of Bacon’s philosophical project.

---

Notice that neither Stewart nor Henry are Christian apologists, but both here recognize that Bacon's belief in the Scriptures had a direct impact on the scientific revolution.Just as astrology deeply influenced Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, like a spark to a fuse, the Scriptures ignited in Bacon’s mind a dream of a new instrument, a Novum Organum, that could lead to an increase of knowledge -- just as he believed the Scriptures "predicted" for the "last days".In regards to Francis Bacon's influence on Darwin, it is interesting to note that opposite the title page of Darwin’s Origin of Species appears the following quotation:

quote:

---

To conclude, therefore, let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.

---

The author is Francis Bacon, and the quotation is from his 1605 book The Advancement of Learning. Here is the classical statement that there are two ways of understanding the character of God, through the Scriptures, and through the world he has made.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 07:45 AMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 07:46 AM

Yes I guess I thought some field because you do have the FORM of the correct position.I have edited in
http://EvC Forum: Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both? -->EvC Forum: Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
http://EvC Forum: Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both? -->EvC Forum: Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
in my prior posts IYI inter alia.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-16-2005 08:54 AM

Thank you for the clarification.

quote:

---

Darwin's claims are not so universal -

---

But they are universal to the extent that our origins are seen within the microcosm of our own human existence here on earth. One can speculate about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe -- but this is merely speculation.While I reject the anthropic principle's claim on scientific grounds that the universe must have been designed for us to have come here -- and for the universe to work the way if does -- I nonetheless respect its peripheral inference (insofar as its predictive power seems to indicate) that there is a high probability that no other forms of DNA-based life will likely be found elsewhere in the universe.

quote:

---

- while the principles may apply elsewhere they may only apply where the right conditions are found.

---

And this "assumes" that all life is DNA based at that -- which may ultimately be proven wrong with further inquiry and research.Of course we have no scientific reasons to think that life is anything but DNA-based -- aside from the functiionally infinite possibilities that are implied by the vast sixe of the universe -- but the possibility still remains open and cannot be excluded from genuine scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

Here on Earth, common ancestry - which surely counts as a larger claim - has been thoroughly confirmed.

---

But it has not been confirmed. It has been clearly displayed to be the most probable theoretical model using solid materialistic assumptions -- which is the explanatory filter of those who are searching for its confirmation.It still remains possible that "common ancestry" for all life may yet be proven wrong with further scientific research.For example, on the one hand, it still remains possible that that there were many periods in earth's history for abiogensis to occur -- thus starting many new braches of life forms which nonetheless derived their characteristics by the same process of mutation and natural selection that the very first organisms were modified by.On the other hand, some metaphysical causality still remains entirely within the scope of the discussion -- to exclude it limits the genuinely theoretical possibilities set before us. The main thrust of my OP was to display that pseudo-science and metaphysics can (and cerainly do) play a significant role in the formation of our ideas concerning the nature of scientific truth.In saying this, I'm by no means suggesting that the theory of evolution should be rejected because of these simple "possibilities". Despite the theoretical possibilities, the theory of evolution still remains the most prominent explanation based on purely naturalistic causes.Yet, even in the potential case of the larger claims of evolutionary predictions being somehow proven wrong in the future, this by no means would necessarilly relegate the entire theory into a pseudo-science.For example, although evolution necessitates more than a few predictions (such as that we should never find a whale with both front flippers and separate front limbs -- or that a mutant or fossil bird with both front wings and, separately, front limbs), finding such a thing should not necessarilly be seen as falsifying evolutionary theories. Rather, I'm rather sure that many would simply attempt to modify existing theories in such as way that they could now accomodate the new evidence.It is true to say that, if such things were discovered, the old paradigm would need to be significantly modified. However, I don't see how it would utterly devastate the theory altogether -- for there is simply too much useful knowledge already acquired by the lesser claims of evolution. It would simply invalidate some of the greater claims while leaving the genuine scientific facts of evolution in tact.In other words, in this hypothetical future situation, the grander claims could possibly be considered by some to be nothing more than a relic of primitive evolutionary predictions -- a pseudo-scientific explanation -- but the minor claims, which have been verified over and over and over again, would remain steadfastly within the realm of scientific inquiry and remain very useful to everyone.

quote:

---

In the area of mechanism Darwin never claimed that Natural Selection was the only mechanism and the range of mechanisms included within evolution has been expanded (for instance the symbiotic theory's explanation of mitochondria).

---

Could you explain this further?

quote:

---

Even if the supposed "pattern" did exist what larger claims are there that we can reasonably say has not been established ? And could they turn out to be badly wrong like the Heliocentric Universe or would they be more likely to be accurate except for special cases, more like Newton ?

---

This is an excellent question. I honestly don't know for sure since I'm only specualting. But, if I'm to keep within the spirit of Popper's risky prediction, then I suspect that a few very specific outcomes could result.First of all, Einstein's theory of relativity did not just have only minor implications in only special cases. True, in simple terms, the mass of the object travelling near the speed of light approaces an infinite mass.But, more importantly for the purpose of this discussion, in providing a genuine mechanism for why the speed of light was indeed limited (as people already knew before Einstein), it essentially destroyed Newton's concept of a universe that could have once been considered only 6000 years old with purely astrophysical reasoning alone.In regards to evolutionary theory, if many of the major predictions of evolution were proven to be demonstatably erroneus, the basic concepts of natural selection and mutation would still provide a tremendous tool for explaining the speciation of life on earth -- although "common anscestry" might go into the realm of pseudo-science, just as Galileo's concept of the "heliocentric universe" did long ago.

quote:

---

Mayr identifies 5 major ideas (What Evolution is Box 5.1 p86):

​

1) The nonconstancy of species

​

2) Common Ancestry

​

3) No saltational change

​

4) Multiplication of species (i.e. branching evolution)

​

5) Natural selection

​

While 3 and - in principle 1 - might not apply in unusual cases none of these could even possibly be as wrong as the heliocentric universe. Biologists have been criticised for understating 4, for instance in the case of horse evolution.

---

Could you explain this further?

I think most here realize that I readilly agree that science provides a great methodology for discovering new found truths. Scientific enlightenment seems to be firmly rooted within the successes of scientific method. I would, however, be wary of allowing the scientific method to be the answer to our search for truth in and of itself.Do we draw near to God via the scientific method?The early Christians who developed it, although very spiritual in their desire to know and love God, were not content with the answer "God did it". Early pioneers of the method, such as Francis Bacon, were concerned with determining the basic principles of reality in so far as to separte God from superstitious preconceived notions -- so that God may be glorified.With the rise of logical positivism, however, the shift in scientific methodolgy seems to have switched from determining "principles that God set forth" to "God cannot be known via science". In effect, logical positivism has discharged the argument concerning the existence of God altogether. They assert the methodology of science as being the only valid path to reliable knowledge -- which effectively disregards any concept of revelation from God.In the scientific method we do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we free our minds only through experimental methods which are designed eradicate presuppostitions concerning our knowledge of nature.The fullness of such positvism is not union with God. It is actually more similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvanna, insofar as knowledge of the physical world is concerned -- so that the scientifically minded effectively achieves a state of perfect indifference with regards to preconceived notions concerning nature.Any faith in God, however, seems to come from revelation -- faith begins at the point where the scientific method ends -- and it is tested further from there. The proper application of the scientific method within a generally Judeo-Christian perspective effectively wittles away false idols so that the believer can then focus their heart within a deeper filial relationship with God's divine love.Some have suggested that, as research has progressed under the scientific principle that the processes of nature are unbroken and regular, it has become common knowledge in physics that an incredibly complex and elegant set of laws describe cosmological evolution.However, cosmological evolution is not the same as biological evolution. Although I admit there are similarities in the sense that both could be naturally selected by the conditions that favor their development, galaxies, stars, planets and moons do not biologically reproduce.Some have also argued that if any of the physical constants or conditions in the early universe were slightly different, then the cosmos would not have evolved. This evidence has led many prominent physicists to speak of the 'finely-tuned' character of the universe and for some of these scientists to suggest that it points to the existence of a 'Fine-Tuner.'On a faith based level, I agree with this. On this level I draw comfort that God is in control insofar as he has precisely determined the precise conditions necessary for our existence. But I also readily admit that this is a faith based reasurrance.On a scientific level, I disagree with this. That fact that things are right for our existence does not necessarilly imply that God did it. Neither does it necessarilly imply that there is a God for that matter.To say the the universe is fine tuned is actually a "descriptive process" which does not infer God's existence to the level that the Big Bang seems to. According to Big Bang cosmology, there is a limit as to how far back in time the universe existed. According to our best knowledge, prior to this time there literally nothing on a physical level -- the laws of space and time break down -- something which even many agree with (not just the religiously minded). Yet this creatio ex nihilo is exactly what many conservative Christians believe preceeded the creation event. To them it's a scientific verification of what the Scriptures already said long ago.On a scientific level, we already know that we are here -- so the anthropic principle, resting solely on its own merit, is simply interpreting the data to suit our needs. The best thing that the anthropic principle can say in regards to life is that we are probably unique in the universe on this planet. This is to say, in using it to make a "future prediction", it is unlikely* that we will find life elsewhere in the physical universe based on this anthropological reasoning.*this is assuming that all life is DNA based.

Well I find it interesting that rather than looking at scientific theories your further "evidence" for your "pattern" is pre-scientiifc astronomy. It confirms my view that your evidence is selective.Moreover you misunderstand the point that Galileo's "larger claim" simply continued older thinking. It is also evidence against your supposed pattern.What you write about Newton is also largely irrelevant. Rather than addressing his mechanics you deal with his views on light and theology.Nor do you address the points raised about evolution.All in all something of an evasion.

Maybe that's because nobody has ever been able to answer the most important question about that - how would we distinguish between revalation from God and somebody making stuff up? Faith begins at the point where you decide that you no longer have to follow evidence to conclusions - you can simply jump to whatever conclusion you like best.