RE: Def'n of Science

Pim van Meurs (
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:09:06 -0800

>[BH] But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?

My point is that since the discovery of

1)the pattern of punctuated equilibrium


2)several biological examples of irreducible complexity, including that of
the bacteria's flagellum, which requires 50 proteins to form it's rotary
motor--any fewer and you have a broken flagellum, not a reduced function

the conditions of Darwin's falsification scenario have been met. Therefore
*gradual* Darwinian macro-evolution should also be taught only in
philosophy classes along with Marxism.

Too bad that this is an erroneous statement. First of all punctuated equilibrium does not falsify darwinism, second of all the "irreducibly complexity" while appealing as an argument, has failed to falsify darwinism as well since it has since been shown that IC systems can "evolve" gradually.