[b-hebrew] Eden

furuli at online.no furuli at online.no
Tue Jun 15 11:11:57 EDT 2004


Dear Jack,

Without any wish to take part in this discussion,  I cannot resist 
making the following comment:  Karl Popper, who was one of the 
pioneers of applying the principle of falsification to the natural 
sciences, entertained for many years the view that the theory of 
organic evolution was *not* falsifiable.  About thirty years ago he 
changed his mind, but only partly so.  He would no longer deny the 
possibility that parts of the theory could be falsifiable.

One description of falsifiability is that we must be able to think of 
at least one set of data, that, if it is found, would show that the 
theory in question is wrong and must be discarded.  If *any* set of 
data that is found can be accounted for by a theory, it is not 
falsifiable.  Looking at the theory of organic evolution as a whole, 
I have never seen any scientist pointing to a set of data, saying 
that if this or that is found, evolution is falsified.  My experience 
from the sideline (I am no longer participating in the natural 
sciences), is that all finds of the past 150 years and up to the 
present have been incorporated in the theory of evolution.


Best regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

>
>
>
>>  On 14/06/2004 22:19, Karl Randolph wrote:
>>
>>  >Dear Peter:
>>  >
>>  >Now that you bring in scienceŠŠ
>>  >
>>  >...
>>  >
>>  >This is not a claim that "creation science" is science. It is not science
>for the same reasons evolution is not science.
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>  I agree with you, more or less. Certainly evolution in terms of
>>  mechanisms is no more scientific than creationism because both are based
>>  on unfalsifiable speculation.
>
>Again, as a scientist AND a Semitist, I will resist the temptation to
>address ignorance of science in a forum designed for the discussion of
>linguistics.  I will only correct the error....the Theory of Evolution is
>indeed falsifiable, otherwise it would not be elevated to the level of
>certainity of a theory.  It is just that after 150 years of collective FACTS
>that the theory explains, not ONE has YET falsified it.  Hopefully, y'all
>know a LOT more about Hebrew than you do science.  Let's stick with the
>Hebrew.
>
>Jack
>
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list