I think most people buy Kuhn's analysis, unfortunatley it is often put forth as a reason to support ID or creation science. However, one should look at plate tectonics to put Kuhn into the real world. Plate tectonics was laughed at, until continued work and peer reviewed publications supported it. We have yet to see that in ID or creation science or with those who have knee jerk religious objections to evolution, the age of the earth, etc.djconklin said:
The Mystery of the "Frozen Mammoths"
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Sealeaf said:
Nice try, but most scientists would fight for their view right up to their death beds unless experiments would decisively prove them wrong.
Unfortunately in some fields of science experiments to prove or disprove a theory decisively are not possible: e.g. string theory, evolution, etc.
Jukia said:
Can you give me some sources in which Kuhn's work is cited in support of ID?
I object to the characterization of "knee jerk religious objections to evolution." There are many scientists who believe in creation who object to evolution solely on scientific grounds. That kind of praseology (and the "thinking" behind it) has ab't as much meaning and value as the 'n' word in race relations.
djconklin said:
This is not completely true. Some aspects of string theory are falsifiable, though it is up to date weather string theory as a whole is testable.
Evolution on the other-hand could be proven false, in fact many creationists continue to try to prove it false! ID on the other hand is completely un testable!
Ways to falsify evolution (from talkorigins):
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.
After hundreds of years of collecting fossils, it is already known that the fossil record is not absolutely static. So under what circumstances could all that data be changed?TheLaughingMan said:
Chimeras are known and no theory that I know of explains them. The cases are simply ignored because they are so rare.
The "mechanism", if one must call it that, is already known, or at least suggested: it is called the protein folding problem.
Or else the lack of observations of organisms evolving from one type into another.
BTW, some of the stuff at talk.origins is unbelievably silly.
The items listed only work for organisms after life has occured. I have no problem with animals changing over time and adapting to new/different ecological niches.
What evolution cannot prove (nor can it be disproven), however, is how life came to be in the first place and how whole new kinds of beings (cats to dogs, for instance) could emerge from a previous life form.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just curious Billy, are the Scriptures wrong about anything? It seems you dispute the dating of the creation of earth at 6000-7000 years? It also seems you dispute the scriptures revealing the earth was a globe before it even became fashionable to utter those words. I deduced that by reading you saying "learn science!" The Scriptures are not a science book, I agree, but scriptures do reveal how God decided to do things, and science has been catching up ever since.
