RE: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)

Pim van Meurs (
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:08:24 -0800

Vernon: It occurs to me that our exchanges to date need to be placed in a
broader context. You may remember that in an earlier response to Kevin I
suggested that evolution (as defined there) was something unique to the
world of science. For example,

(a) It provides an essential basis for all atheistic philosophies. [as
far as I'm aware, no other theory claiming to be 'scientific' intrudes
thus into the area of 'belief'.

I would like to see an explanation why evolution "provides an essential basis for all atheistic philosophies". And I would also like to see how evolution introdes into the area of belief (other than in some creation "science" approaches which deny evolution based upon their interpretation of faith.)

(b) It actively attacks the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian
scriptures - its proponents behaving with evangelistic zeal in this

Once again that requires some additional data especially since there are many people who are Christian and accept evolution. Nor does evolution "actively" attack scriptures.

(c) Its 'fruit' is invariably bad - something which can't be said of any
other scientific theory.

Once again that is an erroneous assertion.

(d) Its validation is based purely on the interpretation of historical
data - for which a 'common designer' explanation is equally valid. There
is no concrete evidence that proves the alleged process to be ongoing
or, indeed, that it has ever occurred.

A common designer explanation is only valid because it has no explanatory or predictive power. Therefor it has no real use. But evolution is not based on historical data alone, on the contrary.

Vernon: Faced with these considerations, the unbiased mind would surely infer
that this must be some unsavoury religious doctrine, fiercely opposed to
the gospel of Christ.

But it was not an unbiased mind who came up with these considerations, therefor your conclusion is based on false premises.

Verno: I believe this to be the truth of the matter, and something that defies a naturalistic explanation. The answer is to be found not in the laboratory, but in the Bible. Accordingly, I believe
'evolution' and 'evolutionism' to be one and the same.

Your belief, however erroneous, has little relevance if you are interested in an unbiased assessment.

Vernon: I am obliged to you for the examples of theories which might be amended
to make them unfalsifiable. However, as I have shown above, there is
more to evolution than immediately meets the eye; it is a special case,
and needs to be treated accordingly.

I am glad that you realize that there is more to evolution than meets your eye. Why are you then not searching for that which you do not understand ?