Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

I second Sylas's interesting point comment, but would quibble a bit more.The researches you discussed were not really pseudo-scientific. Generally we judge science by comparing it to modern scientific methodology. While we would view anyone pursuing a subject today as they did back then "pseudo-science", that was actually the science of the day.I guess this is to say science was being practiced while scientific methodology was still under construction. Thus there should be a bit of sympathy for what they were doing, and that is besides the fact that they were starting with "black boxes" of phenomenon.With our knowledge of chemistry it might be ludicrous to think of changing lead to gold by mixing some substances together, but back then they certainly knew you could get different substances by mixing to other substances together, or heating them in some way, so it all made sense... even from a scientific view.In Chicago the Adler planterium even has a small exhibit dedicated to showing that terracentric theory was pretty darn scientific (even to today's standards) and Galileo's theories had reason to be rejected until later evidence was acquired.It really is about how you approach evidence and knowledge, and for example not throwing out knowledge (or the ability to gain knowledge) just because it might result in something you don't like. This is an epistemological problem both evos and creos share (though evos seem to like to ignore it amongst themselves).In this case Darwin and Galileo were using science, though did not have enough data at the time to have the greater certainty we have now about their general theories. That did not make them pseudo-scientific, nor their theories. They were scientists working on cutting edges.The difference between Galileo and Darwin is that we have more evidence to put his work into perspective and make the claim you found in the quote. We don't have that perspective with Darwin, except to the extent that Sylas detailed.To suggest that the ToE will fall is a bit pseudo-scientific. That it could is one thing, that it will and people should view the ToE that way is something else.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sometimes I just can't believe you. What if he answers that he can't view it that way, because it could result in missing the truth?That is a logical possibility as soon as one accepts modern scientific methodology. We have sacrificed the potential of knowing the "truth" (that is the metaphysical reality of nature), for being able to construct accurate models we can work with and not waste time on potentially false theories.You just got done telling me in another thread that the ability to discern practical knowledge based on criteria is impossible, or can be made practically irrelevant, due to overriding metaphysical moral needs. Is this true for the poster, or not?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually it's not. The OP is asking about if evolution is science, pseudo-science, etc...Those definitions are based entirely on philosophical arguments regarding metaphysics and epistemology. As I pointed out in my direct response to the poster, even if today (according to modern scientific methods) we would consider alchemy a "pseudo-science" at the time it really was valid science. Both the rules and the dataset were much different and so the pursuit and how it was conducted was valid science.If you have read any of Dembski's books he openly discusses loosening the rules of modern scientific methods, such that we return to a much more free science which does not rule out certain metaphysical realities from investigation. He is arguing that the current trade off of strict rules to determine knowledge and "certainty" are too tight because it can lead to something dire which is missing the real truth.He has a valid point. That is possible and for someone with a moral viewpoint that the ultimate "truth" must be the focus of science, then our current methods can definitely be viewed as too strict.You can see hints of this within many of their articles and testimony when they say that science is about seeking "truth", and that is why evo cannot be viewed as more certain than ID. With the lessening of criteria (which they argue for) that is pretty much accurate.That is why I have repeatedly (and so far this has not been objected to) pointed out that what much of this debate centers on is rules of knowledge. It is not simply whether evo has more evidence than creo, but what counts as evidence in the first place.That is absolutely relatable to what was just being argued in the other thread. You don't have to discuss the subject of the other thread to deal with the same epistemological issue here.If he feels that he can redefine the rules by which we gauge certainty within science, such that evo and creo are equal with regards evidence, or that darwin is some form of psedu-science, based on a priori moral beliefs which direct epistemological needs, you have got to have a concrete answer.Your current, consistent one will have to be to retract your statement about certainty regarding the ToE.You may not like the implications, but this is factual and consistent with the topic of this thread. That I relate it to what you said in another thread, to draw out what your real position is, has been a practice at EvC for quite a long time and I don't remember it getting bashed before.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)