RE: [asa] Predictive Power: Astronomy vs. Evolution

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Wed Dec 06 2006 - 15:09:22 EST

I do not think the predictive power of Newtonian gravitational theory is
the same as that of evolutionary theory. In physics there are
variational principles, e.g. Hamilton's variational principle in
mechanics, Fermat' principle in geometrical optics, that lead to
dynamical equation that can be solved for the motion of particles and
that light travels between two points along a path that the time taken
is the least. These principles are not vacuous but are based on models
that lead to explicit results. I view evolutionary theory as a
variational principle governed by the requirement that "organisms will
adapt to environmental and competitive pressures." However, such
requirements do not lead to any specific dynamics. Hence, the predictive
power of evolutionary theory is not there as in Newtonian gravitation.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Predictive Power: Astronomy vs. Evolution

>>> "David Opderbeck" <> 12/06/06 12:56 PM
Second, it seems to me that evolutionary theory does make some general
predictions. The basic one is that organisms will adapt to
and competitive pressures. This is a very general prediction, but it
specific application in areas like disease resistance. This kind of
prediction may not have the granularity of predictions about the
of the planets based on Newton's laws of motion and gravity, but that is
just a matter of degree, not of kind.

The author of the original argument didn't really address my first
As to my second point, he accused me of dishonesty or ignorance. ID, he
said, recognizes the type of microevolution I described, so that doesn't
count as a prediction based on evolutionary theory. After some further
exchanges about this accusation of dishonesty, I was banned from the

So here is my question for this group: was my instinct about this
comparison of the predictive power of astronomy and evolution right?
there better ways to frame / address this argument?

Ted replies:
My sense is that you were dead on target, David. I would add the
prediction that "transitional forms" would be found as more of the
record is revealed. Darwin specifically predicted that, and he appears
have been correct. This argument seems to defy closure, of course;
time a good candidate for a transitional form appears, all of a sudden
creates two new "gaps" to be closed rather than filling an existing one.
so it seems, as we all know. When a position -- that there must be
in the fossil record -- is not falsifiable, it is not falsifiable.

However, there are many others on this list far more qualified than me
respond to your comments. I don't know why microevolution doesn't count
a prediction for Darwin's theory; the fact that ID (and YEC) both accept
simply means that they agree that Darwin predicted at least some
right! I wasn't there and don't know why you got tossed, but I got
from a similar list once myself before I even had a chance to respond to
those who did the tossing. This issue can be pretty hot, obviously, and
doesn't tend to bring out the best in people....


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 6 15:10:25 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 06 2006 - 15:10:25 EST