Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 18 2008,09:04) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 18 2008,11:51) | Nice dodge Bill, but let's think about this for a moment...
Whose theory is actually falisifiable by empirical research - yours or mine? |
What's my theory? I don't know enough about the technical and theoretical issues pertaining to OOL to formulate a theory. That I leave to the professional scientists.
That said, well formed empirical hypotheses articulated within the framework of methodological naturalism strive to be testable by means of specific empirical research.
IOW, not yours.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Describe to us the empirical predictions and resulting research efforts that arise uniquely (or potentially could arise) from your position, motivating empirical research that will otherwise not be pursued. |
What do you know about the history of empirical science Bill?
The scientific paradigm, at the time Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection, was, (what I would call), the "God paradigm" - it was widely held that a creator God had made the universe and everything in it and that all of creation was a reflection of God's character. Much research and many great discoveries were made within that framework, including the classification of species, the concept of genetics and the classification of geological strata by index fossils, to name but a few.
When Darwin proposed his theory, it was controversial and untested, and not immediately accepted, (especially in Europe). It purported to allow for life without the need for a creator - it purported that life as we know it could be the result of natural forces alone. That was revolutionary. Much research was done, and the paradigm shifted back and forth before finally settling on the Darwinian interpretation. Scientists were able to demonstrate, from the evidence available at the time, that life had clearly evolved and that natural explanations were sufficient. God was no longer required! Science had demonstrated that.
But then something happened. As man developed the technology to examine life at higher and higher resolutions, new evidence began pouring in that suggested that life was not so easily explainable by natural mechanisms. The structure and information content of DNA, the world of cellular machinery, the dizzying complexity of something so "simple" as cellular division, and many other such discoveries caused the scientific world to grope for adequate natural explanations.
This is where we are today, which brings us to the issue of falsification. How do you falsify the theory of evolution? And, was the "God theory" ever falsified in the first place?
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." That is the criteria for falsification of Darwinian evolution. I would modify that for the modern synthesis perhaps like this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by natural mechanisms, the modern theory of evolution would absolutely break down." Now think about that for a minute. If that is the true criteria for falsification, (and I can't think of another - can you Bill?), then in order to falsify the ToE, one would basically have to demonstrate that something is impossible. This, (I will argue), is in itself impossible, because - no matter how many demonstrations you are able to make that something is not possible via the tested mechanism or pathway - it can always be argued that there may still be some other mechanism or pathway that has yet to be tested that would make it possible. So, unless you are able to eliminate every possible mechanism and every possible pathway, the appeal to future knowledge cancels out any purported falsification of the ToE. It can't be falsified!
But what is the falsification test for the God paradigm and has it been met? I would modify Darwin's words thus: "If any complex organ existed, which could be demonstrated as capable of having been formed by natural mechanisms, the God theory would absolutely break down."
Now it was thought, when the cell was believed to be nothing more than a glob of protoplasm, that this criteria had been met and that the God theory had forever been put to rest. (God was dead and buried, there were parties, and the atheists danced on his grave!) But, as it turns out, (and as I have sought to demonstrate here), the criteria has not been met! Science has yet to come up with a demonstrable natural pathway - one that takes into account everything we now know about life - for any complex organ. (God is no longer in his grave, the parties have turned into sad drinking binges, and the atheists don't dance so much anymore.)
So to sum up:
A) The God theory can be the basis of empirical science and can provide a framework for research (it has done so in the past).
B) The currently held theory cannot be empirically falsified because its test for falsification is flawed and can be circumvented by endless appeals to future discovery.
C) Modern science has not demonstrated that God is not required.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
