One impression I was left with by seeing Bork's confirmation hearings was
that he acted like a theoretical physicist---using the method of axiomatics
to derive legal consequences from the Constitution. Your example does not
surprise me. Such is the view of one who does not derive from the
Constitution what is not there. Witness the use of privacy to derive abortion!!
>> >> Unlike physics, paleontology is a science in the sense of forensic
>> >> The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike
>> >> not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has
>> >> occurred. The overwhelming numbers of Americans still believe in a
>> >Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the correct standard by which to judge a
>> >scientific theory? Should we apply legal standards to scienc
>> I do not consider evolutionary theory a scientific theory. Ordinary people
>> do not have to be scientists to understand what is being said by
>> evolutionists. It is not like, say, general relativity where ordinary people
>> have to take the scientist's word by faith.
>So your criteria in judging whether an idea is scientific is simply
>whether or not the public can understand it what is being said? I would
>suggest that the public does not understand evolutionary theory very
>well at all, no more than they understand relativity or the kinetic
>theory of gasses. Scientific ideas can often be stated in different
>terms, one easily understood and one not. That does not determine
>whether an idea is scientific or not.
I do not think there is any scientific depth to evolutionary theory. It will
have the status of a scientific theory, a la physics, if and when it is
described at the biochemical level.
>> >> Evolutionary theory is not a theory in the same sense as Einstein's
>> >> gravitational theory where there is an underlying mathematical model with
>> >> predicative power.
>> >Nor does the Germ Theory of Disease have an "underlying mathematical
>> >model". And the theory itself has predictive power with evolution.
>> We do not have to have a mathematical model to understand something.
>Then your dichotomy with Einstein's theory of gravity is irrelevant.
There are different depth of understanding. One depth of understanding gives
rise to explanation. However, the truly scientific gives also to
>> the main purpose of a scientific theory, besides explanation, is predictive
>> power. There may be an underlying mathematical model for germ theory--how
>> the number changes with time, etc. But there is no theory on how apes become
>Perhaps not, but there IS a theory for how apes and humans both evolved
>from a common ancestor. In fact, the theory on this particular
>transition even goes so far as to name the specific genetic coding that
>was mutated in order to produce the transition. This theory predicts
>that we would have a series of species that fall between this apelike
>ancestor and modern humans, and that they should show features that
>become progressively less apelike and more humanlike over time. And they
A sort of linear fit. Tell me what came first the chair or the table--which
evolved from which. What you say reminds me of those political ads where any
Democratic candidate was continuously morphed into Clinton. I believe you
can morph anything into anything.