Re: Pasteur and nature of science

From: Bill Payne (
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 23:13:12 EST

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

    On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:45:25 -0500 (EST) Gordon Simons
    <> writes:

    > Without doubt, the confidence of scientists in the validity of the
    > 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
    > 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.

    This is a tautology: scientists who believe in evolution have increased
    confidence in evolution. By "evolution" we mean life changing from
    simple to complex via natural process, and I am aware of no observation
    or experiment that has scientifically demonstrated that ascension.

    Induced mutations in fruit flies produce only malformed fruit flies - no
    improvements. Could you be a little more specific about the exact
    observations and experiments which daily prove evolution?

    Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
    Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2002 - 23:21:59 EST