Zdenek Skala Zdenek.Skala at INCOMA.CZ
Mon Aug 21 09:15:31 CDT 2000

Dear all,
in my opinion, the problem of creationism is perhaps not so deeply
rooted in the nature of scientific argumentation but rather in specific
problems with evolutionary theory. What we learned about science
(also by the current thread) is that
(1) the scientific knowledge is based on the *evidence* (direct
observation of the reality).
(2) The past is a typical example of the non-existing,
(3) so there can be no evidence about it (we are only a posteriori
interpreting some facts as being "traces" of the past, but there
exist no means how to decide if HOX genes are *really* traces of
the phylogeny or of the common design). Hence
(4) there can be no science about past (including phylogeny) in the
strict sense.
We could learn this lesson also from the controversies on the
"correct" methodology of phylogeny reconstruction (max.likelihood
or parsimony or additive trees, splitting or reticulation...) which lead
to different pictures of the phylogeny and at the same time seem to
have no solution in terms of hypothesis falsification. I am no
creationist, but think we should adhere more strictly our own rules
of scientific reasoning - it would be the best response to
Best regards
] Zdenek Skala
] e-mail:skala at incoma.cz
] fax:++420-2-67311401
] address:
] Nedvezska 2232
] CZ-10000 Praha 10
] Czech Republic

More information about the Taxacom mailing list