"Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?" .....
In order to arrive at any fairly conclusive position on this question and then try to convey those conclusions, the terms involved need to find some common ground of definition that can be agreed on. Those definitions than need to be applied to the question.
The ideas embodied in the modern implications of the term evolution, modern evolution (ME) ,1850's to the present) range from that of the study of the physical sciences alone to an ideology and philosophy that proposes an entire worldview or that can extend to become a proposed cosmology and ultimately a cosmogony. In truth, the accepted definitions and propositions found in ME include all of the above. Its intended persuasions clearly range to the extent of offering
the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
.. Which is also an accepted definition of a religion (<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/" target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org)...
and whose definition summarizes the basic intensions and propositions presented by every major religion in the world.
Are we talking about the entire modern evolution edifice? If you have been following the discussion we've been having over the last two pages you'll see that we have been precisely defining the scope of "evolution" as given in the survey title, namely biological evolution or the Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). [I understand how it feels when you come to a thread with 15 pages of history and decide to post your own thing without actually referring to any of it. That's fine. Just expect to disconnect with the rest of the thread before it.]
Oftentimes when discussing the scientific validity of "evolution" this kind of disconnect will happen. The public view of evolution almost definitely means biological evolution, often with abiogenesis thrown in. However, philosophically evolution can actually refer to ME as edmond describes it which encompasses everything from the Big Bang to cultural anthropology-archeology (evolution of societal structures). So when the "experts" take down "evolution" as being un-scientific the public doesn't have in mind the set of propositions that says that order comes from disorder and God isn't needed to run anything; the public gets the idea that specific pictures like fish crawling onto land and dinosaurs taking to the air (both misrepresentations in themselves) are unscientific. This sort of double-meaning twisting does happen in creationist treatises, for example when Carl Baugh says that the Enuma Elish contains the theory of evolution. Doubtless he means "modern evolution" more than "biological evolution", but you'd never figure that out from the patter he spouts ...
Yes, "modern evolution" is unscientific, tied in philosophically with atheism and materialism.
Biological evolution on the other hand makes no metaphysical statements about humankind's relationship with the universe, other than that they both exist. It is simply a well-shown hypothesis concerning the origins of currently observed biodiversity. It is science.
A definition of
science
. "Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge - based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism - aimed at finding out the truth. The basic units of knowledge are theories, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research." also...http://en.wikipedia.org
Essentially any collection or observation of any natural phenomenon can become science if engaged in collectively by enough individuals with a common idea. <snip>
An interesting idea, aimed at creating a subconscious implication that when enough people believe something it becomes scientific but not necessarily true. Which is nonsense. Note the word "predictive" in the definition of science above. A theory isn't scientific because people believe in it. A theory is scientific because it predicts effects accurately.
Today, their conclusion and theories continue to be the central organizing principles around which all of the propositions of modern biology, geology and their multiple extended area of study continue to be conducted. That comprises the core of how the theories of ME as a science came into existence and continues to perpetuate its existence today.
Again a disconnect between the popular understanding of "evolution" and a generalized, philosophical understanding of "evolution".
For the terms valid and scientific
.. there isnt enough room allowed on a post to even begin to conclude what the conclusion are about these terms. Some would refer to The Scientific Method to define scientific but then not be able to agree as to what parts of what disciplines within the scope of the physical studies of evolution are conducted according to those conditions.
That's highly surprising.
I can define a valid scientific theory in two words:
It works.
A statement / theory is valid if it accurately describes the real world as observed. For example the statement "Trees have leaves" may be valid at all times of the year here in Malaysia, but not in America or other temperate countries where deciduous forests exist. But the validity of a clear statement can be checked at any time.
"Scientific" takes this definition of "valid" and extends it further, introducing the concepts of "repeatability" and "cause-effect demonstration". Basically a theory is a valid scientific theory if it makes predictions that are demonstrably and repeatably true. Einstein's theories of relativity are scientifically valid because we can accurately predict and measure such phenomena as time dilation and spacetime bending. In the same way, biological evolution is scientifically valid because we can accurately predict and measure such phenomena as speciation and adaptation.
A careful study of the origins of ME will conclusively reveal that the bottom-line of presuppositions that accompanied its naturalistic observations were all strongly biased with persuasions that strongly disapproved of the ideologies and teachings that are part of the Genesis account of the creation and of life.
Presuppositions such as?
Rather than applying a true scientific approach to collecting physical data and attempting to conclude what the data are communicating in the most objective way possible, these observations were proceeded by assumption and accretions that were predisposed to interpret the data with a bias that did not include an agreement with the propositions of Genesis. Hence, the basic interpretations of their data are the exact anti-thesis of those offered in Genesis, MEs geological conclusions, long ages of uniform, non-catastrophic, interpretations of the geology of the earth. MEs biological conclusions, Long ages of time producing an evolution of all biological life from one common ancestry of descent that occurred through entirely natural processes and whose physical information exists with no need for the presence of a prior intelligence.
Do you mean "these observations were
preceded by assumption ... " well, the question here is whether evolution is a valid scientific theory, not whether evolution is a theory that goes against Genesis. You will have to show that those "assumptions and accretions" (how do you have "accretions" before observations, anyway? Just what do you intend to mean by an "accretion" in this context? Don't use words that don't fit.) are not valid scientific.
That is the ideology that is included in the basic propositions of ME today. It presents and embodies the exact antithetical position of everything presented as truth in the Genesis account of creation regarding the origins of the universe, of life and of the origins of humankind. ME proposes the exact anti-thesis of all of those truths.
Again, that does not affect its scientificity.
Is the theory of evolution of valid scientific theory? The halls of "science" has allowed it to become so by virtue its own propositions and self-authenticating process and rules of what a science is and can become.
What do you mean by a self-authenticating process? Do you mean peer review? Well, it's obvious that peer review is equally capable of rejecting bad theories as it is capable of accepting others. People no longer believe in phlogistons and
elan vitae partly because the rejection of peers showed that those theories did not produce repeatable predictions which come true.
An illogical theory cannot authenticate itself, I would believe. (The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.) Only an authentic theory can be authenticated ...
Are the theories of ME a science? Again, it has been accepted as such by the self-perpetuating, self-authenticating process of the definition of what a science is by science itself.
The fact that science rejects some theories ... shows that science doesn't just suck in any silly proposition and make it "scientific" without any good reason.
Are the propositions presented by ME a valid theory? If the true evidence of the past is the key to the present as the presuppositions found in the famous axiom of Charles Lyell predict, the answer is conclusively NO, the evidence of the past and the lack of the presence of any pervasive evidence in the present conclude that the propositions proposed by ME are not supportable as a valid theory.
Show this.
Therefore, the presupposed assumptions that accompanied the information that the founders of MEs brought to the halls of science hoping be to affirmatively authentication as pervasively present and therefore valid have instead been repeated affirmed to non-pervasive and inconsistent in their presence in either the past or the present and repeatedly falsifiable.
(If my English teacher saw this she'd shake her head and say, "Write in short sentences. The longer you drag the more errors you make.")
This sentence basically says that the presuppositions of evolution are:
non-pervasive,
inconsistent, and
falsifiable.
The last poses no problem to science. Any scientific theory has to be falsifiable (though not falsified, which is undoubtedly what you actually mean). As for the first two ... show it.
Therefore the theory of ME has been proven to be invalid and therefore false. This also conversely affirms that the propositions found in the Genesis account of creation remain non-falsified by an alternative proposition that offered the embodiment of everything that represented that which was opposite to the propositions of the Genesis account of origins of the universe, of all life including that of humankind.
.
I'm lost.
I'm too stupid to understand these long and winding sentences, the complexity of which would surely do Charles Dickens proud. If you would take the effort to rephrase what you just said in shorter and simpler sentences, I would be most indebted.
