Re: Testing in historical science

George Murphy (
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:07:51 -0500

Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> However, evolutionists claim to
> have answers for the evolution of the eye, for instance. Therefore, such a
> theory of how the eye came to be would easily explain why we have two eyes.
> The claims made by evolutionists seem to me always to be overly exaggerated.
> In fact, it is so presented and fought for that one would think that one is
> dealing with a religion and not a scientific theory.

Some proponents of evolutionists certainly make extreme claims.
But Gould, e.g., repeatedly (as in _Wonderful Life_) emphasizes the
contingency of the evolutionary process, & the fact that an intelligent
observer 5 x 10^8 years ago could not have predicted that our particular
bipedal, 2-eyed, erect, intelligent &c species would have reached its
present stste at this time.
Some evolutionary theorists (e.g., Dawkins) have presented
scenarios to explain the evolution of the human eye. While some may
think that that is a realistic description of what actually happened,
it's probably better to think of it as a plausible argument for how such
evolution _might have_ happened. & I think that's a legitimate
procedure as a response to the classic arguments that the eye _must
have_ been a product of ID. But of course such plausibility arguments
can't be the last word.
George Murphy