Nat

A creationist on TheologyWeb threw a Colin Patterson quote at me that I had seen before

""We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."

Patterson, Colin (1978)
Evolution
London: British Museum of Natural History, pp. 145-146"

The above is what he posted, but I can't find it anywhere on the web except at creationist sites, and all of them use exactly the same ellipses.

Is this quote real?

Thanks

Doubting Didymus

What's the problem with the quote? It looks perfectly acceptable to me. After all, it's only referring to the historical component, not the theoretical, which IS backed up by repeatable experiments.

Jinto

It may look fine, but creationists are well known for taking quotes out of context and/or falsifying them completely, so it would be helpful to know what the original article (if this quote isn't completely bogus) actually said.

As for the refutation, please note that the theory need only make verifiable, repeatable predictions about future observations - it does not need to predict future events. In particular, we can repeatedly find that fossils are consistent with these predictions.

Albion

Well, I've got the second edition and the quote is from the first edition, but I assume the editions aren't that different. I hope this isn't going to be too long an extract copyright-wise, but I think Dr Patterson was sufficiently frosted with creationist tactics tht he wouldn't have minded long extracts in his defence. I like the difference between "by definition" in the creationist extract and "by some definitions" in the text - makes a bit of difference. Wonder if I can get hold of the first edition.

From the chapter "Proof and disproof; science and politics," the section "Is evolution science?" (which follows from a Popper-based discussion of the difference between science and pseudo-science), starting at the top of the section:

"If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical). The question covers two quite separate aspects of evolutionary theory. The first is the general thesis that evolution has occurred - all animal and plant species are related by common ancestry - and the second is a special theory of mechanism, that the cause of evolution is natural selection (in fact Darwin accepted the first idea a couple of years before he thought of the second).

The first, general, theory (that evolution has occurred) explains the history of life as a single process of species-splitting and progression. That process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. Before Darwin, species were generally thought to be fixed and immutable, each with some discoverable and universal essence, like the elements of chemical compounds. Darwin explained species as temporary, local things, each with a beginning and an end depending on contingencies of history. He converted biology from a study of universals, like chemistry, to a study of individuals, like history. So the general theory of evolution is a historical theory, about unique events - and unique events are, by some definitions, not part of science. for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Historians cannot predict the future (or are deluded when they try) and they cannot explain the past, but only interpret it. And there is usually no decisive way of testing their alternative interpretations. For the same reason, evolutionary biologists can make few predictions about the future evolution of any particular species, and they cannot explain posat evolution but produce only interpretations or stories about it. Yet biologists have enormous advantages over historians. First, they have a cohrent, and scientific, theory of genetics, and their interpretations must be consistent with it. Second, they have one basic tool, homology (Section 13.1). And third they have the universal scientific principle of parsimony, or economy of hypothesis, also known as Occan's razor: the simplest story is best. Despite these advantages for the evolutionist it remains true that there are no laws of evolution comparable to the laws of physics, just as there are no laws of history.

The general theory of evolution is thus neither fully scientific (like physics, for example) nor unscientific (like history). Although it has no laws it does have rules, and it does make general predictions about the properties of organisms, It therefore lays itself open to disproof."

etc etc. It goes on to mention the cases where Darwin suggested observations that would destroy his theory and it says that many later discoveries (like Mendelian genetics, the real age of the earth. the iniversality of the genetic code, and vestigial organs at the molecular level) have provided much more severe tests and that "Evolution has survived all of these with flying colours."

Hope that helps, even if it's a different edition. As usual, mighty selective quoting and an utter disrgard of what the author is actually saying.

Nat

Thanks Albion - that was exactly what I was looking for (saved me a trip to the library)!

Yes, the quote is yet another example of dishonesty - problem is who was the original liar that propagated this lie.

MrDarwin

I can't comment on the Patterson quote, but just because a hypothesis is a historical one doesn't make it unscientific. If it is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a series of observations, is be able to make predictions, and can be tested with further observations to be either falsified or modified, then it's science.

We know that life on earth started as microscopic, unicellular organisms, and has changed through time, becoming progressively more similar to modern life over time. This isn't a hypothesis, it's an observation (actually a huge series of observations, as every fossil we find is one more observation). One hypothesis is that there is a genealogical link between the living organisms that the fossil records demonstrates have existed through time; another hypothesis is that mutation and natural selection (among other things, like mass extinctions) are the causes of these changes. These are the things that we test with predictions and further observations. For example, evolutionary hypotheses predict that we will never find modern vertebrates in Precambrian sediments. Hasn't happened yet, never will. We can also predict, based on hypotheses that tetrapods evolved from fish, birds evolved from reptiles, and whales from terrestrial 4-legged mammals, that we will find fossils of creatures intermediate between those groups, before the earliest appearance of those groups in the fossil record. And this happens over and over.

Edited to add, after re-reading the quote, that it's no wonder creationists love quoting Patterson--he doesn't know what he's talking about! I think most historians would take issue with Patterson's claim that, because historical events are unique and cannot be repeated, they cannot be tested. If this were the case, we could never know anything about history at all. Historical events can be, and are, tested by things like contemporary writings (e.g., diaries and various historical documents--the Declaration of Independence comes to mind), chemical analysis of fabrics, papers, and inks, archeological digs, radiocarbon dating, etc. For example, if there are two competing theories for how somebody died, we can exhume that person's body and examine it for injuries, disease, traces of poison, etc.