Re: Theory of Evolutiony

[Tero Sand <cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi>]

David Brez Carlisle said:
> 
> The thread about the theory of evolution seems to me to show a 
> lack of infomation about Carl Popper's theory of science.  In his
> early wrtings he defined a "theory" as an idea which is 
> "falsifiable", i.e. something that can be tested by some prediction
> that could be true or false.   Only falsity has any value - truth
> could be just a coincidence.   
> 
> On this basis  he claimed that evolution was not even a theory, 
> since it could not be tested, unlike relativity which has several
> possible tests, all of which hvae  co me up positive.  
>
> He l ater revised his ideas, and decided that "evolution" was a
> valid theory of another kind.  It is so long since I read Popper
> that I can't remember the refs, but any of you who are interested
> in theories of evolution should read him.  He's well worth-
> while.

No, he later came to the conclusion it is testable, after all. I can
supply a longish quote, if anybody wants,  h o w e v e r . . .

> Down with those ill-informed  creationists.  They know n othing 
> about science.

True enough, but PLEASE, folks, the usenet group talk.origins is for
this sort of stuff. The dinosaur list shouldn't be polluted with this,
ahem, "controversy."

> David
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu (4k*)          ! "We have become... the stewards of life's
                                ! continuity on Earth. We did not ask for this
EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   ! role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be
       custts@cc.helsinki.fi    ! suited for it, but here we are." -S.J. Gould