Bane

<a href="http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6013822&page=4" target="_blank">Evolution vs Creationism</a>

Someone posted Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science by Duane T. Gish.

Anyone want to address this? I haven't read this article of his.

The last post at the bottom.

He's quoting and using Gish's article Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science by Duane T. Gish. Gish uses these three arguments against evolution being science of which I am sure you are familiar with:

1. It "must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be observed."

Yep, evolution has these.

2. It "must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments."

Yep, same as above.

3. It "must be capable of falsification."

Yep, another hit for evolution.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

hezekiah jones

I have a decent anthology full of readings in the philosophy of science here. Let me have a look in the table of contents ...

Let's see ... Popper, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Hempel, Kitcher, Stace, Carnap, Putnam, Quine, Hanson, Salmon, van Fraassen ... Gish, Gish, Gish ...

Nope, no Gish. I guess these journals are censoring him too.

Bane

Does he even work in his field of expertise anymore?

theyeti

Biochemistry? Oh goodness no. He hasn't been in a lab in many years. From what they say, most younger biochemists are shocked by how little he understands the current state of the science.

theyeti

Bane

I can see why. I figured he was similar to Behe. Hasn't actually kept up to date in the field he worked in. Using arguments from the 70s that have been refuted before. He sounds great I imagine to ignorant(of biology) Christians.

At least no one in that thread has used the 2lot argument yet.