I see you are still repeating your blinkered notion of how science works with evidence and have added the "just a theory" trope as a bonus. Do you not know what a theory is in science?
I understand that in science, a theory is more than just a guess; it’s a well-substantiated explanation of facts. But to qualify as scientific, a theory still needs to be based on observable, testable, and falsifiable evidence. That’s where I see evolution falling short.
We observe adaptation and variation, which many call microevolution, but the large-scale transformations evolution claims (like molecules to man) aren't directly observed or repeatable. They're historical interpretations based on present-day evidence. So my concern isn’t with the word 'theory' itself, but whether evolution meets the criteria for scientific investigation in the same way testable laws like gravity or thermodynamics do.
Again, the claim made in this thread is that evolution is a scientific theory in crisis. Theology is not part of science and is therefore irrelevant. I will not discuss it further.
I understand your desire to keep the discussion within the realm of science, but if evolution is still a theory, and not a proven fact, then it’s fair to consider alternative explanations, especially ones that have shaped human understanding for millennia. Theology may not be part of the scientific method, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant to the bigger question of origins.
If the evidence for evolution isn’t conclusive, then it’s reasonable to ask whether a purposeful creation better explains the complexity and order we observe. I’m not trying to shut down science, I’m simply saying we shouldn’t shut out other frameworks before the evidence settles the matter.
It's called a Gish Gallop and it is *entirely* a style of delivery. A lot of what I have seen in your "detailed" replies on this thread amounts to nothing more than incredulity about the evidence that is available. There is also a lot of dismissal of the techniques used in the various fields of science. On the nature of scientific inquiry, I don't see any actual understanding in your posts.
Labelling it a 'Gish Gallop' is a convenient way to avoid engaging with specific points. If you believe my arguments rely only on incredulity or dismissal, then show why they're wrong, don’t just wave them away.
Yes, I question the techniques and assumptions used in some scientific interpretations, not because I misunderstand science, but because I take it seriously enough to challenge claims that lack direct observation or repeatable results. That's not ignorance, that’s critical thinking.
If the goal is honest discussion, let’s deal with the arguments rather than dismissing the person presenting them.
Common ancestry is *well* attested by laboratory experiments.
If common ancestry were truly well attested by laboratory experiments, we wouldn’t be relying so heavily on inference from genetics and fossils. Lab experiments can show small-scale changes, like adaptation or variation within a species, but they’ve never demonstrated the kind of large-scale transformations that common ancestry requires.
What we actually observe are boundaries: variation within kinds, loss of function, and adaptation. Not the step-by-step emergence of new body plans or entirely new functions. That’s a far cry from demonstrating universal common ancestry in a lab.
You state this as if there aren't whole fields of perfectly normal science that has to work with these issues. That you try to make everything a "repeatable experiment under controlled laboratory conditions" betrays your lack of knowledge of how most science actually works.
I’m aware that many fields, like forensics, geology, and astronomy, deal with past events. But even in those fields, conclusions are drawn using testable, repeatable principles in the present to interpret the past. That’s very different from claiming that unobservable, unrepeatable large-scale evolutionary events are as scientifically solid as, say, the laws of thermodynamics.
My point isn’t that all science must happen in a lab. It’s that the further you move from direct observation and repeatability, the more interpretation and assumptions come into play. That’s exactly the territory evolution enters when it claims to explain the full history of life.
Though astronomy is notoriously about observing the past directly, there are places where your "hang-up" would come into play.
Did you know that astronomers are trying to recreate the history of merging of small galaxies into our own? That they are trying to track the development of heavy elements to the present conditions? That they often spend great effort to work out how a particular event occurred, like an exploding star? For the latter it is typically done with out the ability to acquire new data since the event had to be observed when it happened. If the data was not taken there is no way to acquire it now.
Big physics experiments are much the same. Each run of a particle accelerator like the LHC collects a whole bunch of data, but it generally won't be run in the same configuration (energy, etc.) again. The collected data from a run or experiment is fixed and for LHC and many other experiments there is no going back to get more. Does that mean the Higgs isn't real?
You're right that many scientific fields work with limited or unrepeatable data sets, astronomy and particle physics included. But there’s a key distinction: while the data may be fixed, the underlying processes (like stellar physics or particle behaviour) are governed by natural laws we can still observe, model, and test today. Those models produce predictions that can be verified in ongoing ways, even if a specific event isn’t repeatable.
In contrast, large-scale evolutionary events, like the rise of entirely new body plans or the origin of complex systems, aren’t governed by currently observable mechanisms with the same clarity or predictive power. We don’t observe them occurring today, nor do we have a present-day analog we can test or model with the same level of confidence. That’s the heart of the issue: it’s not about whether data is limited, but whether the processes behind the data can be directly studied and verified.
I need to do other things. We'll pick this up later.
I'd be glad to if I can make time. Enjoyed the discussion
