Posted by rpcman on May 20, 1999 at 15:34:11:
In Reply to: more misconceptions. posted by Pat on May 18, 1999 at 23:36:51:
This exchange between Pat and Templar has been excellent.
Templar's arguments have been fairly typical of the anti-evolution crowd. Pat has clearly shown how anti-evolutionists have to create a straw-man in order to attack evolution as the true facts of evolution can't possibly be effectively critiqued.
I'm going to deal with this subject at more length in my forthcoming review of Kuhn's book. In a nutshell, Kuhn points out that two elements must be in place for a previous scientific theory or dogma to be overturned (or superseded by a more correct theory that includes all or part of the original theory). First, the theory must be in a sort of crisis (i.e. unexplainable results must consistantly raise their heads). Evolution only dips into such a crisis state when anti-evolutionists misconstrue the theory to begin with. In other words, the crisis is fictional. Second, and most importantly, a new paradigm can't be entered into unless a better theory (i.e. one that better fits the facts and observations) is presented.
While Templar's original question about other theories is certainly a good question, until one that comes somewhat close to aligning with the facts as evolution does is invented, critiquing what evolutionists and the facts of evolution don't claim is a worthless activity.