Thank you 'thetruerobo' for bringing up this oft used out of context quote from Colin Patterson. I assume you have read Patterson's book? No? well, it may surprise you (or not) to learn that this quotation does not constitute a refutation of evolution as a science and as a fact and as a powerful explanatory/predictive theory. Colin Patterson supported evolution all the way. If you look at the quote in context and actually read what it says, there is nothing contentious here.
The 'general theory of evolution' is the theory that explains all past and current evolution evidence/data. Colin patterson is correct, we cannot replicate what evolution has achieved in the past since those speciation events are unique. As Stephen Jay Gould says, if we were to replay evolution from the begining how life would develop and diversify would be very different from what we actually see in the past (fossils) and around us today.
Now that is no different from the whole of cosmology (we can't repeat the evolution of the cosmos from the begining to today) the whole of geology (we cannot repeat the movement of the plates over millions of years, or the production of rocks from the begining of the earth to today), or the whole of meteorology (we can't repeat the weather that has happened over geological time). The fact that the whole of cosmology, geology and meteorology are not repeatable doesn't make them any less of a science. The key is that evolution theory can provide predictions as to what happened. Just as plate tectonics can be predictive (if the plates moved from A - B we should expect to find X) Evolution theory predicts that birds evolved from reptiles and that we should find transitional forms that exhibit features of birds and reptiles - we do find these in the fossil record. The fact that we cannot actually bring these fossils back to life and, over millions of years get them to evolve into something new which is a modern bird does not mean that it didn't happen. Evolution is a fact and a scientific theory. Patterson is saying very clearly that it is the 'unique event' that is unrepeatable and not part of science, not the totality of the whole explanation - evolution. What Patterson was doing was comparing the fact that evolution has occurred to the subject of history, specifically the History of England. Each historical event is unique and unrepeatable. Historian cannot predict the future no more than evolutionists can predict how or what species will evolve in the future - we may have some fun making these predictions, but they are untestable simply because they are in the future. But our knowledge of evolution and its
Your quotation above has missed out a lot of the context of what Patterson was actually saying and, as with most out of context quotes you have made it say something that was not themechanism does allow us to predict what may have happened in the past. When we find evidence that supports our predictions then it confirms our confidence in the theory as being scientifically true and correct. The whole of evolution as a theory is testable in that all you would have to do is find something that evolution predicts shouldn't have happened, e.g. like finding modern human fossils in the Cambrian Rocks.
The full passage which you have abstracted from is 195 words long and ends by giving a reason why evolution is not a 'law' (many creationists mistakenly cliam that if evolution were really true it would be a 'law' not a theory - again this misunderstands the nature of Laws in science). You quote only 39 words. You have left out exactly 80% of the full quotation.
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts: but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon
Flag/Report comment
Thank you 'thetruerobo' for bringing up this oft used out of context quote from Colin Patterson. I assume you have read Patterson's book? No? well, it may surprise you (or not) to learn that this quotation does not constitute a refutation of evolution as a science and as a fact and as a powerful explanatory/predictive theory. Colin Patterson supported evolution all the way. If you look at the quote in context and actually read what it says, there is nothing contentious here.
The 'general theory of evolution' is the theory that explains all past and current evolution evidence/data. Colin patterson is correct, we cannot replicate what evolution has achieved in the past since those speciation events are unique. As Stephen Jay Gould says, if we were to replay evolution from the begining how life would develop and diversify would be very different from what we actually see in the past (fossils) and around us today.
Now that is no different from the whole of cosmology (we can't repeat the evolution of the cosmos from the begining to today) the whole of geology (we cannot repeat the movement of the plates over millions of years, or the production of rocks from the begining of the earth to today), or the whole of meteorology (we can't repeat the weather that has happened over geological time). The fact that the whole of cosmology, geology and meteorology are not repeatable doesn't make them any less of a science. The key is that evolution theory can provide predictions as to what happened. Just as plate tectonics can be predictive (if the plates moved from A - B we should expect to find X) Evolution theory predicts that birds evolved from reptiles and that we should find transitional forms that exhibit features of birds and reptiles - we do find these in the fossil record. The fact that we cannot actually bring these fossils back to life and, over millions of years get them to evolve into something new which is a modern bird does not mean that it didn't happen. Evolution is a fact and a scientific theory. Patterson is saying very clearly that it is the 'unique event' that is unrepeatable and not part of science, not the totality of the whole explanation - evolution. What Patterson was doing was comparing the fact that evolution has occurred to the subject of history, specifically the History of England. Each historical event is unique and unrepeatable. Historian cannot predict the future no more than evolutionists can predict how or what species will evolve in the future - we may have some fun making these predictions, but they are untestable simply because they are in the future. But our knowledge of evolution and its
Your quotation above has missed out a lot of the context of what Patterson was actually saying and, as with most out of context quotes you have made it say something that was not themechanism does allow us to predict what may have happened in the past. When we find evidence that supports our predictions then it confirms our confidence in the theory as being scientifically true and correct. The whole of evolution as a theory is testable in that all you would have to do is find something that evolution predicts shouldn't have happened, e.g. like finding modern human fossils in the Cambrian Rocks.
The full passage which you have abstracted from is 195 words long and ends by giving a reason why evolution is not a 'law' (many creationists mistakenly cliam that if evolution were really true it would be a 'law' not a theory - again this misunderstands the nature of Laws in science). You quote only 39 words. You have left out exactly 80% of the full quotation.
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts: but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon