Re: Def'n of Science

Neal K. Roys (
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:05:17 -0600

Jonathan Clarke wrote:

>Science is a very difficult thing to define.

>I have erected the following taxonomy.


>and the verifiability of results.

The two glaring omissions in Jonathan's taxonomy are the words
"testability" and "falsifiability."

Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as Darwinism,
were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was realized that they
weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of philosophy.

You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if *both* a
verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.

Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
falsification is undefined.

Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?

"The cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
naturalistic mechanism of choice)"

If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
science, Punctuated Equillibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.

A speculation.

Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL