bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/12/84)
For clarity, I have broken my response to Ray Miller into several separate articles. Ray Miller writes: > Is evolution falsifiable? Is creation falsifiable? No for the first and > yes for the second. Hence by the criteria of some on the net, evolution is a > pseudo-science while creation is a science. > The evolutionary biologists Drs. Ehrlich and Birch wrote in > "Nature" that "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be > refuted by any possible observations..." Unfortunately, Ray's reference ("Nature") is incomplete, so I can't check it to see if it has been taken out of context (a common creationist debating tactic). However, let that pass. Even if it fairly represents the opinion of Drs. Ehrlich and Birch, it is just that - an opinion - and a minority one at that. Some evolutionists do indeed have this opinion, but no matter how eminent the authority, arguments from authority, such as this, carry little weight. > Bill's suggested test was evidence of men and dinosaurs living > contemporaneously. Not quite. I asked for specific, physical evidence gathered under conditions that would guarantee their authenticity and interpretation. Ray has avoided discussing my proposal, so he has failed to prove anything about the testability of evolution, except to show that the opinions of evolutionists on this issue are not homogeneous. So, Ray, how about getting back to the point and showing why my proposal (and others like it) would fail to give evolutionary theory serious difficulty? Besides, I doubt that Ray really believes that evolution is not falsifiable. If he did, why would he spend so much time trying to falsify it (with the Paluxy features, for example)? -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)