RE: Evolution's Imperative

Steve Clark (
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:20:43 -0600

At 12:35 AM 3/24/99 -0600, Cummins wrote:

>Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
>it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified. Darwin came up
>with some
>ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g.
>aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.)

I just love it when people claim that evolution is not falsifiable then say
that it has been falsified.

But, because
>Evolution is a nonscience, any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental
>the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new theory
>get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
>Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
>to save Evolution from).

On what basis do you claim that falsification is the way to demarcate
science from nonscience?
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792,Steven.html