miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (02/29/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600143:000:4676
uiucdcs!miller Feb 28 23:41:00 1984
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.
Bill Jefferys wrote "Let *evolutionists* propose conceivable observations
whose implications would be so serious *to evolutionists* that it would cause
them to question the validity of evolutionary theory. Similarly, let *crea-
tionists* demonstrate that their discipline is indeed a science by suggesting
conceivable observations that would cause *them* to question the validity of
creationism." A fine idea, with Bill being the only evolutionist brave enough
to do that. Bill's suggested test was evidence of men and dinosaurs living
contemporaneously. Given such evidence in 3 separate notes by me, others on
the net responded with things like: well, little green men from Ork might have
trotted around barefoot and then split for 65M years (ala Eric Von Daniken).
Silly of course, but it demonstrates that evolution is so plastic that it can
always be twisted to squirm out of any potential falsification procedures.
And what predictive value does it have for the future? Due to the random
mechanism for change, very little, if any. No predictions can be made as to
the direction, rate, limits, etc. of future evolution. It all depends upon the
toss of the dice. 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. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into
it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No
one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or
based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified sys-
tems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part
of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."
But as I promised last week, here is a falsification test for creation (2
test actually). First for the Paluxy River tracks. Given a slab of Cretaceous
limestone, fabricate a human-like footprint. It must be of equal quality as
the best that Dr. Baugh has found, i.e., subtle human features such as toes,
arch, heel, ball of foot, etc. all in correct anatomical proportions.
Additionally lamination lines *must* follow the contour of the depression -
including the toe region. The lamination lines will of course eliminate all
carvings (hoaxes, erosion, etc.) I will wave the additional restriction that
the print must be located underneath overlying Cretaceous layers to make it
easier. If such a thing can be done (and no scientist or evolutionist has yet)
then while not falsifying creation, I will agree that the Paluxy tracks cannot
be used as strong positive evidence for the model.
(BTW Bill, to answer your question, if I recall correctly Dr. Baugh has 2
doctoral degrees: one in Theology and the other in Paleoanthropology. He also
has a MS in Archaeology. So despite your comments, he knows what he's doing.)
But to put creationism to the test even more: creation, unlike evolution,
says that some things won't happen (and thus opens itself to falsification).
Creationists claim that there are limits in variability to viable organisms.
Thus to falsify the claim, simply demonstrate said transitions in the past
(through fossils) or in the present. If you don't know the difference between
"horizontal" and "vertical" evolution then you don't know enough about the
creation model to intelligently criticize it. If you don't know why creation-
ists generally agree with evolutionists on the *order* of fossils in the local
geological columns then you don't know enough about the creation model to
intelligently criticize it. And finally, if you don't propose a mechanism by
which your model can be falsified (or at least try like Bill) then you have no
grounds on which to call evolution a science.
Finally, Bill writes "the best way to be convinced of the weakness of the
creationist case is to read some creationist literature, and I encourage evolu-
tionists to do so". Now, although I disagree on the weakness point, I do agree
on reading the literature. If nothing else, objective people like to hear both
sides of an issue - from the *proponents* of each side. I suggest the book
"What is Creation Science?" by Drs. Morris and Parker. If all you want is an
introduction and you're only going to read one thing, this is definitely the
one to get. There are others more technical, but this is a good start.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoisbch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (03/01/84)
There is a certain amount of silliness to Miller's conditions under which
creationism can be falsified. Obviously, given a slab of limestone, no
one can fake a footprint impression believably. This only indicates that
the Paluxy "footprints" are not contemporary fakes. It does not indicate
that they are necessarily impressions of human footprints. There are
other aspects of the Paluxy impressions which indicates that they may
have been the product of something other than humans.
(1) One gets the impression from the creationist literature that the
Paluxy site is a flat and level limestone sheet with obvious footprints
in it. This isn't quite the case. The Paluxy river is, and has been,
an active river for a considerable fraction of the year. The Paluxy
bed is considerably irregular and eroded. It is possible, according to
some who have seen it, to identify "tracks" of virtually every mammalian
species in the bed, if some imagination is used.
(2) To differentiate the "human" footprints from other depressions in the
rock, they have been highlighted in oil or some foreign substance. This
adds to the illusion of humanness.
(3) When viewed as a track, the footprints show a stride far in excess
of the normal human stride especially when one considers that the
people who supposedly made these tracks would have to have been slogging
through mud to have made them in the first place. Further, the left-right-
left sequence is often obscured, with the "instep" of the "feet" falling
on the wrong side.
(4) With respect to many of the "footprints" there seems to be a claw
extending from the "heel." This has lead informed observers to believe
that the Paluxy prints, such as they are, are erosion-modified prints
of three-toed-dinosaurs with the "heel" actually being the front of
the middle toe.
(5) Skeletal fossiles in the area (Sorry, Ray, there *are* such in this
area. Why did you tell us there were not?) indicate the normal range
of Cretaceous reptilian life such as it has been found elsewhere, no
human or significant mammalian presence. There is no evidence of
human encampments or artifacts such as would be expected, and is generally
found, where there was sufficient technology for a species to leave
"moccasin prints."
Finally, the simple model of the falsifiability of theories that seems
to be proposed here is really inaccurate. No single observation, or
finite set of observations, is really fatal to a theory. It is only
when a theory consistantly fails to come up with compelling explanations
for a class of observed data that it can be called into question. Even
then, unless there exists a theory in competition which (a) offers
compelling explanations for all data "explained" by the prior theory
and (b) offers a "better" explanation of the data at hand and (most
important) (c) does not induce imcompatibilties with other accepted
scientific theories that cannot be resolved, the prior theory will be
retained.
In sum, Ray's argument is not convincing, either from its premises
with respect to falsifiability, the hypothesis he offers up to be
falsifiable or the data he cites to confirm the hypothesis. I remain
unconvinced.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (03/02/84)
#R:uiucdcs:10600143:uiucuxc:3900049:000:3125
uiucuxc!tynor Mar 1 16:57:00 1984
Ray, you never seem to learn. Now you attempt to reverse one of
science's crutial tests of scientific theories: Is It Falsifiable? You
make the outrageous claim that Creationism *is* falsifiable and that
Evolution is not. To support your view you claim that creationism
would be falsified if scientists could show evolution, either by
experiment or in the fossil record. You then go on to carefully
explain that there is a difference between *horizontal* and *vertical*
evolution. You insult your critics for not being familiar with this
*important* concept.
Well Ray, I am familiar with the creationist's concept of
horizontal and vertical evolution. I have never seen a consistant
definition of what constitutes horizontal and what falls into the
vertical bin... In one sentence, a creationist will claim that foxes
and domestic dogs are closely enough related to be considered as having
evolved from a common ancestor, then tries to show why humans and
chimpanzees (which show roughly the same biochemical and anatomical
similarity as the dog/fox case) could not have descended from a common
ancestor. The horizontal/vertical concept is simply a clever way of
admitting that significant evolution has taken place without giving up
the precious idea that "God created the basic *Kinds*".
You claim that creationism is falsifiable, but fail to outline any
way that the scientist could falsify it. Creationist have already
admitted to evolution with the horizontal/vertical trick, so
demonstrations of transitional fossils will not do the trick...
Your entire discussion of the Paluxy River tracks is extraneous. Even
you admit that "if such a thing can be done...while not falsifying
creation,..." I fail to see your reason for including this in this
discussion. Simply eliminating a piece of evidence does not falsify a
theory (unless that one piece of evidence is the only evidence you
have...)
You claim that evolution is itself non-falsifiable. You claim that
it has no predictive value. Somehow you demand that a theory be able
to predict future events in order for it to be termed 'predictive'.
Evolution does predict several things: The biochemical similarity of
all life, the order of the fossil record, the anatomical similarity of
diverse species, etc. The concept of evolution does not include the
specific *mode* of evolution. This is currently under serious
debate...(yes, there are some Lamarkians even today!) But the
evidence for evolution (however it occured) is tremendous.
If your creation model (young earth, Noadic flood, etc.) is to be
taken seriously, the whole of science must be trashed. It is not only
evolutionary biology that conficts with your model, but also astronomy,
geology, chemistry, and physics. Your model nesessitates the total
restructuring of Science. (Not to mention the requirement of a
supernatural creator. More on that later.) Extrordinary claims demand
extrordinary evidence. (more than a few 'footprints'...)
Steve Tynor
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana