daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (05/20/84)
> Remember, the theory of evolution derives from a now abandoned theory > of social progress. Shall we therefore abandon evolution as well? I always thought the theory of evolution derived from Darwin's study of birds and other animals on the Galapagos Islands. Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (05/21/84)
> Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation." > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented. Creationism is not a scientific theory, since it is not based on scientific evidence. It may be *supported* by scientific evidence (though I haven't seen this), but it's *based* on Genesis. If you are going to call something a science, then you can't ignore scientific method. The point is, it matters *how* you reach your conclusions. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (05/21/84)
> If you are going to call something a science, then you can't > ignore scientific method. The point is, it matters *how* > you reach your conclusions. Scientific theories should be judged on only two criteria: 1) Their ability to explain existing data. 2) Their ability to make testable hypotheses. Beyond this, Occam's razor can be carefully used to distinguish between competing theories with no testable differences. The "scientific method" is a pernicious myth. Scientists simply don't use it. They (we) use internal paradigms that couldn't stand the scrutiny of our undergraduates, but which are invaluable nevertheless. The point is that scientific discovery and presentation of scientific knowledge are two very different things. What ever truth the scientific method contains applies to the latter, but not at all to the former. Remember, the theory of evolution derives from a now abandoned theory of social progress. Shall we therefore abandon evolution as well? Of course not. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution has suffered at the hands of its own proponents who were unable to distinguish it from the theory of social progress. (Jay Steven Gould writes eloquently on this point. I think all of his books deal with this issue at some point.) The theory of evolution is a better scientific theory than the theory of creation simply because 1) it explains known data better, and 2) it has made testable predictions which have been verified. Let us not in our zealotry for honesty become dishonest. There is no benefit in replacing the mythology of Genesis with a mythology about the scientific method. ---------------------------------------- Stuart Kurtz Dept. of Computer Science The University of Chicago