Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
What is Science? “Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.” (1)
The scientific method is a “process of continuous testing,” (1) whereby science gains confidence in its explanations. The basic method can be described as:
Observe
Hypothesize
Test
If successful, Repeat
Observation Observations are the “grist for the mill of scientific inquiry.”(1). Observations are our window into the underlying facts about our universe.
Hypothesis An hypothesis is “a tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested.” (3) In addition, to be a legitimate hypothesis it must “be consistent with prior and present observations and must remain subject to continued testing against future observations. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.” (1)
An hypothesis is a proposed explanation for the observations, not an inductive generalization about those observations.
Testing Testing an hypothesis consists of two steps, forming deductive predictions, and testing those predictions. A deductive prediction is a formulation of what must be true, if the hypothesis is true. This can be either the results of a proposed experiment, or a statement about what future evidence should find, or about the outcome of new analyses of existing data.
Tests should be reproducible; this means that any and all analyses of the available data, or repetition of the specified experiments should produce consistent results.
Repeating the process. If testing on a hypothesis fails, the hypothesis can be said to be falsified. However, “the process of continuous testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support. Such hypotheses become known as scientific ‘theories.’”(1)
So, is Evolution Science or Not? The short answer is yes. Evolution was originally proposed due to a great number of observations, many of which Charles Darwin documented in On the Origin Of Species. Other observations common at the time related to the fossil record showing a progression of species over time, and the nested hierarchy of species revealed by taxonomy.
When discussing evolution, there are two things to consider: common ancestry, and the mechanisms that lead to common ancestry (the current theory is called the modern synthesis). Both of these proposals rely only on natural mechanisms, and are valid scientific hypotheses.
In addition, these hypothesis make many testable predictions. In Descent of man, Darwin himself used his own theory to predicted where human ancestors would be found: “We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere” (5, p155)
Many predictions relating strictly to the concept of common descent can also be made, for instance the prediction that molecular and morphologic phylogenies should be highly convergent (4).
Time and again, the predictions of evolution are tested and confirmed. Evolution is clearly a robust scientific theory, and it has withstood nearly 150 years of testing.
Of course evolution is science, everything that theory is based on is based on scientific experiments. I think the misconception is that evolution is only based on this monkey to man theory that came from fossil records. However, the meat of evolution is found in the microbiology, chemistry, and genetics. Yes, initial observations were made, but the only way that the theory was refined was through subsequent experiments.
For instance, the "chemical soup" experiment helped confirm and deny some assumptions, while research into genetics with regards to vestigial structures confirmed and denied other assumptions. I don't understand how someone could have a masters or PhD. in any life science and not believe in the fact of evolution.
The scientific method is a “process of continuous testing,” (1) whereby science gains confidence in its explanations. The basic method can be described as:
Observe
Hypothesize
Test
If successful, Repeat
The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.
How do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. ~ Ernst Mayr
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. ~ Colin Patterson
The domain of origin science was taken over by operation science. Even the unique, unrepeated events of the origin of the universe, of life, and of new life forms were treated as though the were observed regularities in the present. The difference between unobserved past singularities (origin science) was obscured. The search for natural (secondary) caused for how the universe and life operate in the present was gradually extended to how they originated in the past. Overlooked was the fact that events of origin are not a recurring pattern of events against which a theory of origin can be tested. ~ Norman Geisler
__________________ If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.
Bevets: Haven't we addressed all of that before? Aren't you being a bit dishonest?
I guess thats nothing new.
Now, do you have your own words to say or some evidence to back up your supposed claims beyond the opinions of others?
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
Ha ha, nice! Reminds me of the technique theists use to prove that god exists. Basically, it is an illustration of the proof by authority which, if you check the op, is not the way evolution is studied.
__________________ Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. - Mother Teresa
Bevets: Haven't we addressed all of that before? Aren't you being a bit dishonest?
When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski
Behold an evolutionist has spoken! (Yea verily, it is written in the Gospel of TalkOrigins!) If an evolutionist has addressed any topic it will be off limits for discussion for the rest of eternity. This is a one way street of course.
__________________ If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.
Last edited by bevets; 24th September 2004 at 11:03 PM.
First off, science is simply a word that means experiential knowledge. In the 17th century they began to make a distinction between natural science and theology and Francis Bacon called them sister sciences. For decades the tools (mental and physical) were developed and natural science began to explore the natural world on an inductive (particulars to princliples) basis. When Sir Issac Newton did a series of experiments at the Royal Society in London on the refraction of light there was one crucial demonstration that he had to perform in order for his experiment to corrospond with the hypothesis. This is know as the experimentum crucis and with this succesfull demonstration modern science as we know it was born.What you have to understand is that when a hypothesis is tested there is a crucial point of demonstration, if the result is positive then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Lets look at evolution now, it is defined in the modern synthesis as the change in gene frequencies over time. This is the definition that you will find in virtually any biology textbook on the subject of evolutionary biology. Ernst Mayr, who was the first to use this defintion, had this to say about the philosophical underpinnings of modern biology and he credited Charles Darwin with its development:
"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.
1.The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself.
2.The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin.
3.Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities.
4.Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.
Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination..."survival of the fittest."
(Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought,by Ernst Mayr)
Now what you have to understand here is that this is not a theory, its a synthesis. A synthesis is a philosophical reconciliation between two seemingly contradictory points of view. What you have in the modern synthesis are two seemingly antithetical theories (some would say philosophies) that are at odds with one another. The one is Darwin's natural selection and the other is genetics. In the modern synthesis what you have is a conception (natural selection) merged with the demonstrated empirical science of genetics. The foundational laws of science were developed by Mendel.
This is called the subjective/objective duality of science and you have to discern between the naturalistic materialism of Darwin (subjective) and the empirical demonstrations of Mendel (objective).
I'm going to see what kind of responses I get before I elaborte on the implications of the modern synthesis for creationism.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Philosophically speaking, you can make up anything you want for the past. Heck, you can make up anything you want for anything.
But constrained within a scientific framework, the past can be studied by:
a) observing natural processes and the results of said processes
b) inferring from those observations, the processes which shaped existing features of the natural world
In the case of evolution, we see the very process happening today up to and including the formation of new species. Furthermore, we have evidence (both fossil and genetic) that suggests the process has been ongoing since life first appeared. There's really nothing mystical about it. It's just accepting that the natural processes which we observe now also worked in the past. Granted, we can never know all the finer details (there just isn't a perfect record of every living thing that ever existed). But we can paint a pretty good general picture.
So yeah, in this framework I would consider evolution to be a science.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Linear Mode
