Hi Gerhard,

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:53:37AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> In Popper's sense (to which I don't subscribe), "science" requires a theory
> that makes reasonably precise predictions so that directed observations can
> be made that could falsify the theory. 

Yes, I agree with you and share the same feelings. I am very certain that
Science was being done before Popper's ideas. The requirement that a theory
be falsifiable is a wonderful tool though, that makes it easy to detect
non-scientific ideas.

> Evolution with a capital E is not a theory that makes predictions, it is an
> interpretation of history, a claim to a certain reality. It doesn't say
> that life on this planet could have originated through evolution (with a
> lower case e), but it claims that it has. It is not a theory that makes
> predictions precise enough to be tested.

I disagree with this. Evolution does make predictions which can be
tested. If Evolution is only an interpretation of history then the science
of geology must be as well. One prediction that Evolution makes, which is
easy to test now days, is that similar species have a common ancestor. This
can be tested by comparing the species' genome. There are predictions that
can be tested, evolution can be falsified, and I've seen no serious
arguments to the contrary.

Take care, Matthew.

-- 
"We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than
others. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."  -- Stephen F. Roberts
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist