Message #1302 [Holysmoke] To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj: Popper pooper ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 090

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Message #1302 [Holysmoke] From: LARRY SITES Posted: 9 Sep 94 22:13 To : ARTHUR BIELE Subj: Popper pooper ARTHUR BIELE to ALL on 09-05-94 01:02 re: "THE COLLAPSE OF EVOL 1/ AB>THE FAILURE OF DARWINIAN 'NATURAL SELECTION'! Part One. AB>Wistar, 1967!!! AB>In 1967, a very dramatic confrontation took place between Neo-Darwinian AB>evolutionary scientists on one side; and the other side How do you know? Were you there? If not why have you not given proper credit to the person who's work you present as your own? Are you not a bible beleaver? Have you not broken one or more of your own rules for living: Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's. AB>One year earlier, mathematicians and biologists were chatting over a AB>picnic lunch organized by Victor Weiskopf, My you do get around don't you? Or is this more plagerism? AB> Medawar went on to explain the position of AB>science philosophers such as Karl Popper, who declared that neo AB>-Darwinian theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, it is not AB>even a scientific hypothesis, but rather, it is a study in metaphysics. AB>He quoted Popper's charge that the theory was not falsifiable, it could AB>not be proved wrong. AB>Popper specifically stated: "Neither Darwin, nor any Darwinian, has AB>so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of AB>any single organism ot organ. All that has been shown ... is that such AB>an explanation might exists - that is to say, they are not logically AB>impossible." Karl Popper also stated that Darwinism is not a scientific AB>theory at all since it can never be proved or disproved: we can not go AB>back into the past to see what really happened. Medawar explained, AB>"These objections are widely held among biologists generally, and we AB>must on no account, I think, make light of them." If you are going to present all this as your own research work, then I assume you are willing to be held accountable for it. You are either a liar or a total ignoramis. If you really followed these issues as closely as your presentation implies, then you would know that this is NOT Popper's latest stance on this issue. Read it and weep some more: Area # 256 ORIGINS *(Talk) 06-17-94 00:43 Message # 779 From : JAMES J. LIPPARD To : ALL Subj : RE: FALSIFYING EVOLUTION In article <2trb6f$>, bharper@magnus.acs. (Brian D Harper) writes... >(speaking of Popper, does anyone know the reference where he >recanted his oft-quoted statement that evolution is not >falsifiable?) Actually, he never said that evolution is not falsifiable. He said that the "theory of natural selection" or "Darwinism" is not falsifiable. He retracted this in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355. See pp. 344-346, esp. p. 345. Also see his letter in _New Scientist_, vol. 87, 1981, p. 611. Duane Gish, in _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_, pretends that critics of creationism have claimed that the _New Scientist_ letter is his retraction, and tries to argue that it's not really a retraction--but he ignores the quite explicit retraction in _Dialectica_. Jim Lippard _Skeptic_ magazine: Tucson, Arizona --- Courtesy of Silver Xpress ! Origin: E & S Systems fido <-> unix gateway (1:202/217) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Area # 256 ORIGINS *(Talk) 06-30-94 17:46 Message # 831 From : JAMES J. LIPPARD To : ALL Subj : RE: MICHAEL PITMAN AND K In article <2uvg9g$>, (Wesley Elsberry) writes... :While browsing in the TAMU library, I ran across a copy of Pitman's :"Adam And Evolution". I decided to skim a little. : :Very early on, Pitman brought up Sir Karl Popper's critique of :natural selection. I thought little about it, since that is a :staple of older SciCre texts. However, just a little further :on, Pitman quoted some more Popper -- from his 1980 New Scientist :letter. I that point, I had had quite enough. Someone who tracks :Popper's work that closely cannot reasonably be held to be :innocently ignorant of Popper's late 1970's recantation of his :prior stance on natural selection. Gish's _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_ does the same. The recantation is Popper's 1978 _Dialectica_ article. Jim Lippard _Skeptic_ magazine: Tucson, Arizona --- Courtesy of Silver Xpress * Origin: E & S Systems fido <-> unix gateway (1:202/217)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank