1. In assignments A1 (Age of the Earth) and A2 (Age of the Universe) the following general information was established:
A. The Creation Science Model holds to a supernatural
origin of all things, design, purpose, interdependence, formation, net
basic decrease in complexity over time, limited horizontal change (micro-evolution),
earth history dominated by catastropic events, age of the earth, solar
system, and universe less than 12,000 years.
(Morris - pg 10) [click on to
go to ref.] (The Young Earth; John D. Morris; Master Books; 1994)
B. The Evolution Science Model holds to a naturalistic
origin of all things, chance, random, mutation, natural selection, net
basic increase in complexity over time, unlimited vertical change (macro-evolution),
earth history dominated by uniform events, neo-catastrophism, age of earth
and solar system about 4.5 Bil. years, age of universe between 10-20 Bil.
years.
(Berra - pg 71,72) (Evolution
and the Myth of Creationism; Tim M. Berra; Stanford University Press; 1990)
2. Statements concerning which model is based on science and which model is based on religion include the following:
A. (Morris
- creationist):
(pg 18) "Evolution is a belief system some scientists hold about the
past, and they use this view of history to interpret the evidence in the
past ... both evolution and creation are outside the realm of empirical
science, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither is observable
or repeatable.
They are in the category of singularities, one-time events ... any view
of origins must be held ultimately by faith."
B. (Berra - evolutionist):
(preface) "Creationism has no scientific validity and is a threat to
the growth and spread of knowledge ... Creationists ... because they depend
on supernatural intervention, not natural law, they are also unscientific.
There is no scientific evidence ... to support the Creationists' claims
... they have chosen to abandon reason and evidence
in favor of dogma and blind faith ..."
(pg 126) "... The Creationists' arguments are not only anti-biology
but also anti-physics, anti-astronomy, and anti-geology. In short,
they reject all scientific knowledge that does not fit their view of the
world ... they question the integrity of science ..."
(pg 132) "... Creationists' arguments ... all of the same character
- scientifically inaccurate, willful, oor devious."
3. Statements concerning what "SCIENCE" is include the following:
A. Evolution
sources:
1) (Berra)
... claims that are susceptible to
testing ... (preface)
... subject their assertions to revision based on evidence ... (preface)
... A scientific theory must also be capable
of being falsified ... (pg 3)
... Science, because it is a self-correcting endeavor, is prepared
to modify any theory ... ((pg 4)
... A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method ...
(p3)
... subject to experimentation,
prediction, revision, falsification
...
... scientist, who look to hard evidence, observable
facts, and critical thinking for explanations (p70)
... Science can make no statement about the nature of the universe
prior to that explosion
(Big Bang) (p71)
2) (Geology
textbook): (click on to go to)
... A THEORY is a coherent explanation for one or
several related NATURAL phenomena supported by a large
body of objective evidence. From a theory are derived predictive
statements that can be tested by
observation and/or experiment
so that their validity can be assessed. (p 12)
... Theories are formulated through the process known as the SCIENTIFIC
METHOD. This method is an orderly, logical approach that involves
gathering
and analyzing the facts or data about the problem under consideration.
Tentative explanations or HYPOTHESES are then formulated
to explain the observed phenomena. Next the hypotheses are tested
to see if what they predicted actually occurs in a given situation.
Finally, if one of the hypotheses is found, after
repeated tests, to explain the phenomena, then that hypothesis
is proposed as a
theory. (p 12)
... in science, even a theory is still subject to further testing
and
refinement as new data become
available (p 12)
... The fact that a scientific theory can
be tested and is subject to such testing separates science
from other forms of human inquiry. Because scientific theories can
be tested, they have the potential of being supported or
even proven wrong. (p12)
... science must proceed without any appeal to beliefs
or
supernatural explanations, not because such beliefs or explanations
are necessarily untrue, but because we have no way to invesitigate them.
For this reason, science makes no claim about the existence or nonexistence
of a supernatural or spiritual realm. (p 12)
3) (Biology
textbook - Starr):
... To get a sense of "how to do science," start by following some
practices that are pervasive in
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH = observe ... develop hypotheses
or educated guesses ... make a prediction ...test
accuracy of predictions ... check ... repeat
the tests or devise new ones ... objectively analyze and
report the test results and the conclusions you have drawn from them ...
refer to these practices as THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
... (p12)
... A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH to studying nature is
based on asking questions, formulating hypotheses, making predictions,
devising
tests, and objectively
reporting the results.
... A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a
testable explanation about the cause or causes of a broad
range of related phenomena. It remains open
to tests, revision, and tentative acceptance or rejection.
... Experiments start from a premise that any aspect of the NATURAL
world has one or more underlying causes, whether hidden or not. With
this premise, since is distinct from faith in the supernatural (meaning
"beyond nature"). (p 14)
... Experiments must deal with potentially
falsifiablehypotheses.
... The call for objective testing
... puts limits on the kinds of studies that can be carried out.
Beyond the realm of science, some events remain unexplained ... subjective
answers do not readily lend themselves to scientific analysis and experiments.
(p 16)
... The external world, not internal conviction, must be the testing
ground for scientific beliefs. (p 16)
... Systematic observations, hypotheses, predictions, tests
- in all these ways, SCIEENCE differs from systems
of belief that are based on faith, force, or simple consensus.
4) (Physics
textbook - Serway):
... (p 1) Physics, the most fundamental physical science, is concerned
with the basic principles of the Universe. It is the foundation upon
which the other physical sciences - astronomy, chemistry, and geology -
are based.
... (p 1) The beauty of physics lies in the simplicity of the fundamental
physical theories and in the manner in which just a small number of fundamental
concepts, equations, and ASSUMPTIONS can alter and
expand our view of the world around us.
... (p 3) Physics is a fundamental science concerned with understanding
the natural phenomena that occur in our Universe.
Like all sciences, physics is based on experimental
observations and quantitative measurements.
... (p 3) When a discrepancy between theory and experiment arises,
new theories and experiments
must be formulated to remove the discrepancy.
... (p 108) Isaac Newton ... is regarded as one
of the greatest scientists in history. ... His contributions to physical
theories dominated scientific thought for two centuries and remain important
today. ... Newton was a very private person who studied alone and
labored day and night in his laboratory, conducting experiments,
performing calculations, and immersing himself in THEOLOGICAL
studies.
5) (Astronomy
textbook - Chaisson - 3 rd ed, 1999)
... (p 604) Central issues = How big is universe?
How long has it been around?
What was its origin One time or renew?
... Science may be ready to provide some insight regarding the ultimate
origin of all things ...
... (p 605) On basis of ... rather sketchy data, theoretical insight,
and not a little
PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCE
... Cosmologists ... ASSUME the universe
is roughly homogeneous ... universe looks smooth on
largest scales
... Cosmic homogeneity = 1st of 2 major ASSUMPTIONS
(Cosmological Principle)
... Cosmic isotropic = 2nd
major
ASSUMPTION
... (p 606) Birth of Universe: Astronomers BELIEVE
that everything in universe was confined to
a single PT.
... BIG BANG ... so age of universe finite [it had a beginning]
... The entire universe was a point [so radius = zero, volume = zero]
... (p 611) The Big Bang was a singularity in space and time ... the
universe at BB had zero size ... the
theory of general relativity ... has broken down
... (p 616) Age (of universe) from cosmology ... close to age of globular
clusters (10-12 Bil. yr) ..
may be contradiction...
... (p 627) Pair production ... law of conservation of mass and energy
...
... (p 626) In the beginning universe consisted of pure energy ...
... (p 628) For some reason there was a slight
excess of matter [the entire universi] over anti-matter
...matter has continued to evolve into more complex ... atoms,
galaxies, life ...
... (p 635) Inflationary universe ... solve problems ... "theory implies"
... (p 638) 97% of matter in the universe is invisible "dark matter"
...
... (p 643) these ideas are very
speculative ... universe from literally nothing ...
B. Creation sources of what Science is:
1) (Gish
- Teaching Creation Science in Public SSchools; 1995): (chapter 1)
(p1)... Science is our attempt to observe, understand and explain the
operation of the universe
and the living things found here on planet earth.
... a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, by definition, must
be TESTABLE by observations and must
be
capable of being falsified
if indeed it were false.
... a scientific theory can only attempt to explain processes
and events that are presently
occurring repeatedly
within our observations
... theories about history ... are not scientific theories ...
... Science is empirical, and thus this is the
only way a scientist can operate ...
... [EMPIRICAL = making use of, or based on, experience, trial and
error, or experiment,
rather
than theory or systematized knowledge.
Derived from the senses and not by logical deduction.]
2) (Chittick
- The Controversy: roots of the CCreation/Evolution Conflict; 1984)
(p16)... modern science is based on the assumption of scientific law.
...moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical base for
science. Scientist must be honest and truthful.
(p17)... Creation is the foundation on which modern science began.
(p18)... Early modern scientists believed that the universe had a supernatural
origin ...
... Now most scientists ... believe in some form of evolution ...
... Now naturalistic philosophy reigns ... it was not the discovery
of new scientific information ...
(p19)... The change came about as a result of a shift in the philosophy
used by scientists, a shift toward antisupernaturalism ...
(p20)... The facts of science were not what led to a rejection of creation
and acceptance of evolution ...
evolution was adopted for philosophical rather than scientific reasons
... Evolution is a belief system.
(p21)... Science gathers facts and then interprets those facts by means
of a theory based on
assumptions, and that human factors such as philosophical bias are
involved as well ... the
clash between evolution and creation is between one belief system
and another.
(p24)... scientists use faith ... all scientistific explanations are
based on faith because faith is the
grounds on which the original assumptions are held.
... Science never proves anything in an absolute sense. It works
by process of induction and deduction ...
Deduction uses the rules of logic to proceed from a set of assumptions
to their consequences.
(p29)... (evolutionists) define evolution as "The Scientific
View" ...
... To a scientist who believes in creation, creation
is "The Scientific View" ...
... Regarding creation and evolution, the assumptions and thought
system one uses are a matter of personal choice.
(p31)... Creation and evolution are conflicting philosophies.
They each constitute a belief system about the past.
(p37)... Science observes the present universe, the material
universe as it is now.
... Scientists cannot directly observe the past.
(p44)... Creation has not been scientifically or logically disproved.
It is only disbelieved.
(p48)... One of the basic methods of science, repeatability,
cannot be applied to earth history
... History happened only once.
(p49)... Paleoscience cannot really be studied by methods which
are generally termed "scientific".
(p50)... Scientific theories are very useful ... they are also
subject to abuses ...
...Five abuses of scientific theory:
1) dogmatism 2) extrapolation
3) exaggeration 4) subjectivism 5)
exploitation ...
... they are the reason many people are prodded into beliving
in evolution.
(p53)... The founders of modern science operated from a theistic
base ... they viewed their discoveries of the
natural laws of the universe as thinking God's thoughts after
Him. ... [see Einstein quote]
... to them SCIENCE was a search for the TRUTH.
(p54)... The early scientists placed great emphasis on TRUTH.
... To them, a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION was a TRUE
EXPLANATION, one which reflected reality.
... a drift in thinking occurred toward science as the ultimate guide
to truth. Science itself was credited rather
than its biblical philosophical base ... this gave rise to scientism,
or the worship of science.
(p57)... after Darwin ... new definition ... a scientific explanation
was, by definition, a naturalistic one ...
(science = naturalism). Its main emphasis was on avoidance of
the supernatural as an explanation.
In the new definition, science was an enterprise which attempted
to explain the material universe, both past and present, in naturalistic
terms. The TRUTH
of an explanation was not as important as avoiding the miraculous.
(p59)... Creation and evolution ... neither can be studied in the laboratory
today. ... etc.
3) (Gish - Creation Scientists Answer Their Crittics; 1993)
A.
Define
SCIENCE:
(p32)... EMPERICAL SCIENCE is our attempt to observe, understand, and explain
events, processes, and properties that are repeatably
observable.
On the basis of such theories predictions can be made concerning related
natural phenomena or future natural events. Thus, experiments
can be conceived and performed to test
the
theory and which may possibly show that the theory is wrong, if it is wrong.
This property of potential falsifiability
is an important element of a true scientific theory. Empirical science
and scientific theories thus are restricted to attempts to explain the
operation of the universe and of the living things it contains. They
are about the real world out there, the here and now.
Theories about origins, whether
creation or evolution theories, are of necessity basically very different
from empirical scientific theories. There were no human witnesses
to the origin of the universe, to the origin of life, or to the origin
of a single living thing. These events were unique,
unrepeatable, historical events which happened in the past.
No one has ever seen a worm, a fish, an ape, or
a man created. Neither has anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an
amphibian or an ape evolve into a man. Furthermore, one cannot go
into the laboratory and test a theory on how a fish might have evolved
into an amphibian or how an ape may have evolved into a man.
Creation and
evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence.
(p33)... Evolution theories do attempt to employ processes
still acting today to explain how evolution may have occurred, but the
time spans required to see if such ideas are correct involve tens of thousands
of years, even millions of years, so no test of the theories
is possible.
The ultimate question in the two conflicting theories
on origins - creation and evolution - is: How did the universe and
its living inhabitants come into existence? Did the universe come
into existence by a process of self-transformation via naturalistic, mechanistic
processes due to properties inherent in matter, or was it created by the
design, purpose, and deliberate creative acts of an intelligent, omnipotent
Creator?
Ultimately, it is not
possible to falsify either general proposition, although
from each there emerges subsidiary hypotheses which are potentially capable
of falsification.
B.
Quotes
by evolutionists concerning evolution, science and religion:
(p28)... let us consider the religious nature of evolution. Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, a Frence priest whose real faith was evolution,
stated that : (evolution) ... "is a general postulate to which all
theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they
must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light
which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must
follow - this is what evolution is". (P.T. de Chardin, as quoted by F.J.
Ayala, Journal of Heredity 68:3-10; 1977)
... The passage by Teilhard de Chardin ... is religion, pure and simple.
(p29)... the late British biologist, atheist, and evolutionist, Sir
Julian Huxley, who stated that: "I use the word 'Humanist'
to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon
as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally
created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control
or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself,
and his own powers." (Anonymous, "What Is Humanism?" a pamphlet distributed
by the Humanist Community of San Jose, Cal, 95106)
... We thus see that humanism is a non-theistic religion, with evolution
as one of its fundamental
dogmas.
(p29)... Richard Lewontin, a Marxist atheist who is
a professor of biology at Harvard University, has said that: "Yet,
whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism,
whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is
no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism.
They are irreconcilable world views." (R.C. Lewontin, in Ref. 1, p.xxvi)
... If, as Lewontin and his fellow evolutionists claim, creation is religion,
then precisely the
same must be said about evolution.
(p29)... L. Harrison Matthews, British biologist and
evolutionist, in his Introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's Origin
of species, stated that: "The fact of evolution is the backbone of
biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
founded on an unproved theory
- is it then a science or a faith? p; Belief in the theory
of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L.H. Matthews, Introduction
to The Origin of Species, C. Darwin, reprinted by J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd.,
London, 1971, p. xi)
(p30)... The powerful, underlying religious foundation of evolution was
aptly expressed aby Bozarth when he proclaimed that:
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate
end over evolution, because evolution
destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly
made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin,
and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God.
If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution
means, then Christianity is nothing." (G.R. Bozarth, American Atheist,
Sept. 1978, p. 30)
(p31)... Julian Huxley made no effort to conceal the
fact that he viewed evolution as a new faith, a new religion. He,
in fact, set about to establish a new religion based on evolution.
Huxley declared that: "... the evolutionary vision is enabling us
to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that
we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Julian
Huxley, in Issues in Evolution, Vol. 3 of Evolution After Darwin, Sol Tax,
Ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p.260)
(p31)... In the book that Huxley co-authored with the British evolutionist
Jacob Bronowski, Huxley and Bronowski stated that:
"A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus
evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate
man's beliefs and hopes as God was in the past." (Julian Huxley and Jacob
Bronowski, Growth of Ideas, Prentice-Hall, Inc., englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1968, p. 99)
(p31)... Marjorie Grene ... a well-known philosopher
and historian of science ... proclaimed that: "It is as a religion
of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men's minds. ... The
modified but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become
an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted,
they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." (Marjorie
Grene, Encounter, Nov. 1959, p.49)
(p31)... Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist
at the British Museum of Natural History, is an evolutionist ... has declared
that: "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose
faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being
carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin."
(Colin Patterson, The Listerner 106:390-392, Oct. 8, 1981, The Listener
is a publication of the British Broadcasting Corporation.)
... Can there be any doubt ... that in the minds of its leading exponents
evolution is religious
orthodoxy?
(p35)... The non-falsifiability of
the general theory of evolution, that is, the notion that
the ultimate origin of the universe and of its living inhabitants can be
ascribed solely to a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process, has
been asserted by evolutionists ...
(p35)... Sir Karl Popper, one of the world's leading
philosophers of science and an evolutionist himself, has stated that:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism
is not a testable scientific theory but a
metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for
testable scientific theories." (Karl Popper, in The Philosophy of Karl
Popper, P.A. Schilpp, Ed., Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1974, p. 134)
(p35)... Michael Ruse, an ardent Darwinian and arch
anti-creationist, ... has said in reference to the statement quoted above,
that: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position
somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does
not
really
believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."
(Michael Ruse, Darwinism defended, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., London, 1982,
p. 133)
(p35-36)... Murray Eden, certainly not a creationist,
agrees that evolution is a non-falsifiable theory. He states that:
"Even in biology, I recall one occasion on which I helped develop a very
ingenious and very plausible theory regarding the countercurrent mechanism
in the kidney. It was not only falsifiable, it was false. My
point is that for such a theory, one could propose a crucial experiment
and check as to whether or not the theory was false or not.
This cannot be done in evolution,
taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when I called
it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything.
You may be ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible
to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms
which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable
theory." (Murray Eden, in Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. P.S. Moorhead and M.M.
Kaplan, Eds., Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 71)
(p36)... Alex Fraser, then Professor of Genetics,
University of California, Davis, stated: "...the only thing I have
clearly agreed with through the whole day has been the statement made by
Carl Popper, namely, that the real inadequacy of evolution,
esthetically and scientifically, is that you can explain anything you want
by changing your variables around." (Alex Fraser, in Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of evolution. P.S. Moorhead
and M.M. Kaplan, Eds., Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 67)
(p36)... Marcel Schutzenberger, then Professor of
Mathematics, University of Paris, with reference to evolutionary explanations,
said: "A science consists also of a selection of questions or problems
and of a general framework within which it can be decided if a question
has been answered or not. ... For any specific question you can provide
me with a specific answer, but I would claim that in most of the circumstances
there was no general principle on which you could decide in advance which
type of specific explanation you would use for it. I think this is
exactly what it means to be a nonfalsifiable
theory." (M.P. Schutzenberger, in Mathematical Challenges
to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of evolution. P.S. Moorhead and
M.M. Kaplan, Eds., Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 70)
(p37)... Drs. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, biologists
at Stanford University and the University of Sydney, respectively, summarized
the problem in Nature, the journal published by the British association
for the Advancement of Science: "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 to test it.
Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory
experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems 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." (Paul Ehrlich
and L.C. Birch, Nature 214:352, 1967)
... What Ehrlich and Birch seem to be saying is that evolution
theory has become so plastic that it no longer makes any difference
what the data may be, there will be some way to fit the data into the theory.
The theory thus is untestable and consequently
non-falsifiable.
(p37)... challenges to the scientific status of evolution theory
... The main challenges are coming not from creationists but from their
fellow evolutionists. Thus Douglas Futuyma,
in his anti-creationist book, states that: "Two major kinds of argument
about evolutionary theory occur within scientific circles. There
are philosophical arguments about whether or not evolutionary
theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and substantive arguments about
the details of the theory and their adequacy to explain observed phenomena.
... A secondary issue then arises: Is the hypothesis of natural selection
falsifiable or is it a tautology? ... The claim that natural selection
is a tautology is periodically made in the scientific literature itself
..." (D.J. Futuyma, Ref. 7, p. 171)
(p38)... A tautology is a circular argument in which
the conclusions are merely a restatement of
the premises employed in the first place.
... "scientific circles". This is a term that
evolutionists reserve only for fellow evolutionists.
(p38)... Francisco Ayala, a biologist and ardent anti-creationist,
admits that: "Two criticisms of the theory of natural selection have been
raised by philosophers of science. One criticism is
that the theory of natural selection involves circularity. The other
is that it cannot be subjected to an empirical test." (F.J. Ayala,
in The Role of Natural Selection in Human Evolution, F.M. Salzano, Ed.,
North-Holland Pub. Co., 1975, p. 19)
... any theory that cannot be subjected to empirical test cannot qualify
as a scientific theory.
(p38)...Ayala ... correctly pointed out that:
"A hypothesis or theory compatible with all possible states of affairs
in the world of experience is uninformative. ... the important point
is that the empirical content of a hypothesis is measured
by the class of its potential falsifiers." (F.J. Ayala, ibid., p.
19)
... a theory that is stated in such broad or vague terms that there is
no way to show that it is wrong, if it is wrong, is a very poor theory;
at the very least it is not a scientific theory. A theory, to qualify
as a scientific theory, must make definite predictions, the failure of
which would falsify the theory. Any theory that is thus so plastic
that all possible results, no matter what they may be, can be accommodated
within its general concepts, is not a scientific theory.
(p39)...Ayala states: "Natural selection can account for the different
patterns, rates, and outcomes of evolutionary processes. Adaptive
radiations in some cases, as well as lack of phyletic diversifications
in others, rapid and slow rates in evolutionary change, profuse and limited
genetic variation in populations; these and many other alternative occurrences
can all be explained by postulating the existence of appropriate
environmental challenges." (F.J. Ayala, ibid., p.20)
... In other words, it makes no difference what the data turn out to be.
One can imagine an evolutionary scenario to account for the data.
Thus, the theory of natural selection can be used to explain
anything and everything:
(p40)... the "explanatory" power of natural selection ... is limited
only by the powers of human imagination. ... the empirical content of the
theory is practically non-existent because its
class of potential falsifiers is empty.
(p41)... David Hull, in his review in Science, the publication of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, of the book Dimensions of Darwinism,
edited by Marjorie Grene, states that: "The problem with explaining
the structure of organisms in terms of past adaptations is that neither
available evidence nor current theories of evolutionary mechanisms constrain
such explanations very much. Indefinitely many alternatives
stories seem equally plausible." (David Hull, Science 223; 1923;
1984)
(p42)... This is what the late Theodosius dobzhansky, one of the main architects
of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, had to say ...: "These evolutionary
happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible
to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation.
The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists
when they ask for 'proofs' of evolution which they would magnanimously
accept as satisfactory." (Theodore Dobzhansky, American Scientist 45:388;
1957)
(p44)... Derek Ager, a professor of geology at the university in swansea,
Wales, and a vigorous anticreationists, declared that: "It
must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned
as a student,... have now been 'debunked.'" (D.V. Ager, Proceedings
of the Geological Association 87:132; 1976)
(p45)... Dr. Larry Laudan, professor of the Philosophy of Science at the
University of Pittsburgh ... who is ... an evolutionist ... declared that:
"The victory in the Arkansas case [the judge ruled against allowing Creation
Science to be taught alongside Evolution Science in public schools] was
hollow, for it was achieved only at the expense of perpetuating and canonizing
a
false stereotype of what science is and how it works. If it
goes unchallenged by the scientific community, it will raise grave doubts
about that community's intellectual integrity." (Larry Laudan, in Creationism,
Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case, M.C. La Follette, Ed., The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983, p.166)
(p45)... Philip L. Quinn, a philosopher of science ... says: "If the expert's
views are not representative of a settled consensus of opinion in the relevant
community of scholars, then policy based on those views will lack credibility
within that community, and the members of that community are likely to
regard such lack of credibility as discrediting the policy in question.
This was the major problem in McLean v. Arkansas. Ruse's
views do not represent a settled consensus of opinion among philosophers
of science. Worse still, some of them are clearly false and some
are based on obviously fallacious arguments." (P.L. Quinn, "The
Philosopher of Science as Expert Witness," in Science and Reality, J.T.
Cushing, C.F. Delancy, and G.M. Gutting, Eds., University of Notre Dame
Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1984, p.51)
(p46)... Ruse has published a spirited defense of evolutionary theory in
general and of neo-Darwinism in particular. He bemoans the fact that
today Darwinism is not only under attack by scientific creationists, but
is under attack even among committed evolutionists and among others, many
of whom are professional philosophers, who agree as to the inadequacy of
Darwinism, citing serious internal conceptual flaws. (Michael Ruse, Darwinism
defended, Addison-Wesley Pub. co., London, 1982, p.xv)
(p46)... Ruse ... stating: "...what distinguishes science
from nonscience is the fact that scientific claims
reflect, and somehow can be checked against, empirical experience -
ultimately, the data that we get through our senses. ... Starting from
the logical point that,
although many positive instances
cannot confirm a universal statement, one negative instance can refute
it. Popper argues that the essential mark of
science - the 'criterion of demarcation' - is that it is falsifiable.
... (Michael
Ruse, p 131 ...)
(p56)... C.H. Waddington, a British biologist and
fervent neo-Darwinian ... frankly stated that: "Natural
selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis
that was in need of experiment or observational confirmation turns out,
on closer inspection, to be a tautology, a statement
of an inevitable although previously unrecongized relation. It states
that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave
most offspring) will leave most offspring." (C.H. Waddington, in The Evolution
of Live, Vol. 1 of evolution After Darwin, Sol Tax, Ed., University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p.385)
(p57)... Waddington ... "The theory of neo-Darwinism
is a theory of the evolution of the population in respect to leaving offspring
and not in respect to anything else ... Natural selection is that some
things leave more offspring than others; and, you ask, which leave more
offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring, and there
is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts
of evolution - which is how do you come to have horses and tigers
and things - is outside the mathematical
theory." (C.H. waddington, p.14)
(p63)... From our discussion, it can be seen that both creation and evolution
contain an importand dimension of metaphysics. They are thus, as
Popper has stated, metaphysical research programs. Strictly defined,
neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. This does
not mean that they do not have scientific character or that they cannot
be discussed in scientific terms and their credibility evaluated on the
basis of scientific evidence.
(p64)... Hsu, a committed evolutionist, states:
"... I agree with (Paul Feyerabend) that Darwinism
contains 'wicked lies'; it is not a 'natural law' formulated
on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma,
reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century." (Kenneth
Hsu, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(5):729-730; 1986)
(p65)... Gould stated: "... the historical
sciences, treating immensely complex and nonrepeatable
events (and therefore eschewing prediction while seeking explanation
for what has happened) and using the methods of observation and comparison.
Evolutionary
biology is a quintessential historical discipline." (S.J.
Gould, Science 223:255; 1984)
(p66)... theories on how the universe came into existence in the first
place are ... outside the
limits of empirical science ...