Re: Pasteur and nature of science

From: Gordon Simons (
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 09:45:25 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Pasteur and nature of science"

    To my comment:

    > What eventually overcomes this opposition, when the ideas are correct,
    > are the things Ted Davis attacks: observations and experiments.

    Bill responds:

    > Then by your criteria, the theory of evolution is not "scientific
    > knowledge", or is it?

    Without doubt, the confidence of scientists in the validity of the theory
    of evolution has increased enormously, over many decades now, as a
    consequence of observations and experiments. These observations and
    experiments are occurring in research laboratories and in field studies on
    a daily basis. So, yes, I would call it scientific knowledge. Most
    scientists do. Likewise, observations and experiments would provide the
    basis for the rejection of the theory if they did provide contrary
    evidence. But, in the judgment of most scientists, they have not. As with
    all areas of science, there remain perplexing situations that have not
    been resolved one way or the other yet.

    Gordon Simons

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 09:46:36 EST