In Reply to: Re: More from 'National Geographic' posted by empiricist on March 30, 2005 at 21:20:00:
You have to be seriously kidding to say that evolution is an empirically testable theory. You are kidding, right? Would you care to explain any empirical tests that have been done to show that bear-like creatures have, and still can, turn into blue whales? The dictionary definition of empirical is ‘relating to or based upon direct experience or observation alone.’ Think about that for a moment and then tell me how many empirical tests have been & can be done to buttress the theory of evolution.
Perhaps you chose the wrong word, or perhaps even the wrong name – Empiricist. Another meaning of empiricalis ‘relying on practical observation without benefit of scientific knowledge or theory.’ But evolution is a theory & it is well-known that supposed gradual evolutionary changes are not observable. If you think they are you should read the writings of the brilliant evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould, who came up with an entirely new theory (punctuated equilibrium) to buttress evolution, based upon his honest admission that there was no evidence/proof of evolutionary change in the fossil record, & that Darwinian theory in all its orthodox forms did not have satisfactory answers.
Even the definition of empiricism is of no help in this case, since that means, ‘The doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience’ or ‘reliance on sensory observation and experiment as the bases of knowledge.’ But surely you are not saying that yours or anyone’s sensory experience can in any way validate the theory of evolution? Again, I refer you to Stephen J. Gould who had to come up with the theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to explain why the fossil records bear NO evidence of evolutionary change. Have you read Gould’s writings?
By the way, which particular brand of evolutionary theory to you follow? Would you define yourself as a neo-Darwinist or a punk-ekker?