Science and Notscience

[JohnR7]

Other than the obvious one being that they aren't science.

I would tend to agree that theistic evolution is not science, simply because a lot of evolutionary theory is not science. But there are TE's who would tend to believe that what they believe is science.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I would tend to agree that theistic evolution is not science, simply because a lot of evolutionary theory is not science. But there are TE's who would tend to believe that what they believe is science.

It is another lie that "a lot of evolutionary theory is not science", a lie which you tel repeatedly and are never able to support.

 

[At Peace Without God]

I would tend to agree that theistic evolution is not science, simply because a lot of evolutionary theory is not science. But there are TE's who would tend to believe that what they believe is science.

sorry.. but which bits of evolutionary theory are not science (i need references here)

This definition of evolution from wikipedia aint too bad.

Generally, evolution is any process of change over time. In the context of life science, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

Because the term evolution can be used in many different contexts, even within biological circles, it is useful to correctly identify some of the key terms. Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time. The theory of evolution is the scientific model that describes the descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor. Natural Selection is the principal mechanism that causes evolution. In common parlance the word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for both the modern theory that all extant species share a common ancestor as well as the mechanisms through which natural selection acts to change populations over time.

As the theory has become widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics — often Creationists — sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as "just a theory" — using "theory" as synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiablehypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory.

please, refering to:-

Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time.

explain which bit isn't science?

 

[Valkhorn]

Once again John is at it again.

Could you possibly substantiate something once in a while? Or, is that too much work?

 

[JohnR7]

sorry.. but which bits of evolutionary theory are not science (i need references here)

Here are a few just to get things started: Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Haekel's faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor (feathered dino), Sibley and Ahlquist (DNA primate phylogeny), Miller and Urey (life in a bottle), Bernard Kettlewell (peppered moths).

Why is it that they have to fake so much evidence? If everything alive today evolved then you would think that there is so much real evidence they would not need to try and fake it.

 

[JohnR7]

Once again John is at it again.

Could you possibly substantiate something once in a while? Or, is that too much work?

The problem is not so much the work, as it is people who keep ignoring the evidence that raises serious questions about how valid evolutionary theory is.

 

[notto]

Here are a few just to get things started: Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Haekel's faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor (feathered dino), Sibley and Ahlquist (DNA primate phylogeny), Miller and Urey (life in a bottle), Bernard Kettlewell (peppered moths).

Why is it that they have to fake so much evidence? If everything alive today evolved then you would think that there is so much real evidence they would not need to try and fake it.

So John, which of these does modern evolutionary theory rest on? Which of these was 'faked' by scientists? Which was discovered by scientists?

We have plenty of evidence of hominid evolution. There are plenty of real and verified finds. We have plenty of feathered dino finds. There is no need to 'fake' anything and it wasn't the scientists doing the 'faking' in most of your examples.

 

[JohnR7]

We have plenty of evidence of hominid evolution. There are plenty of real and verified finds. We have plenty of feathered dino finds. There is no need to 'fake' anything and it wasn't the scientists doing the 'faking' in most of your examples.

I would think that there is no need to fake anything and yet time and again things turn out to be a fake or a radical misrepresentation.

So John, which of these does modern evolutionary theory rest on?

I would say the one you see the most on here is Sibley and Ahlquist (DNA primate phylogeny), known as the Yale scandal.

 

[notto]

I would think that there is no need to fake anything and yet time and again things turn out to be a fake or a radical misrepresentation.

And again, who publishes the results that determine what is fake? Who perpetuated the fraud in the first place?

There is no 'need' to fake anything. There is plenty of evidence without everything you cited. That doesn't mean it won't happen, just that it doesn't need to. Each of the things you mention has very little impact on evolutionary theory. We have real hominid and feathered dinosaur fossils so the impact of the fake ones is null. The photos of moths were staged, but they reflected the reality of what was happening.

 

[JohnR7]

Each of the things you mention has very little impact on evolutionary theory.

Sibley and Ahlquist (DNA primate phylogeny) work still has a impact today when people try to show that there is a link between man and apes, and yet the data was not accurate or acceptable. Haekel's faked embryonic drawings were widely used as evidence as were many other faked drawings.

The Nazi party, rather unfortunately, used not only Haeckel's quotes, but also Haeckel's justifications for racism, nationalism and social darwinism.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html

Evos want me to substantiate what I am saying but it is evolutionary theory that is far to often unsubstantiated. I am not on a witch hunt to expose fraud, even though there is a lot of fraud to expose. I am just showing that a lot of evolutionary theory is NOT based on good, sound science.

 

[notto]

Sibley and Ahlquist (DNA primate phylogeny) work still has a impact today when people try to show that there is a link between man and apes, and yet the data was not accurate or acceptable. Haekel's faked embryonic drawings were widely used as evidence as were many other faked drawings.

Can you explain the impact of Sibley and Ahlquist? How was their work addressed? What did peer review reveal? What specifically was Haekels drawings effect on evolutionary theory? What claims were made related to evolution based on them? Please be sepcific. What other faked drawings are you referring to?

How were each of these dealt with by the scientific community? How were the fakes uncovered? What impact did each discovery of the 'fake' have on evolutionary theory?

Trying to somehow paint the vast amounts of research and work done in the field as corrupt with a few (and incosequential overall) fakes perpetuated ON the scientific community is simply bogus.

By your logic, ALL of biblical archeology is false because of Ron Wyatt.

 

[JohnR7]

Can you explain the impact of Sibley and Ahlquist?

Everything I answer a question I get 10 more questions. Sibley and Ahlquist were accused by Yale University of bad science, you can read it yourself at:http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/amsci.html

If you want to start to deal with all of the frauds & fakes that we find in evolutionary science that is fine, I will start to research that. A good place to start would be with Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) because he exposes a lot of the fakes and the fraud. Here is a good place to start: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/SurvivaloftheFakestpt1.html

 

[JohnR7]

It is another lie that "a lot of evolutionary theory is not science", a lie which you tel repeatedly and are never able to support.

Science is only science if you can verify it. If someone else can repeat your work and get the same results.

 

[notto]

Everything I answer a question I get 10 more questions. Sibley and Ahlquist were accused by Yale University of bad science, you can read it yourself at:http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/amsci.html

If you want to start to deal with all of the frauds & fakes that we find in evolutionary science that is fine, I will start to research that. A good place to start would be with Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) because he exposes a lot of the fakes and the fraud. Here is a good place to start: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/SurvivaloftheFakestpt1.html

So science weeds out bad research. That is not news and is one of the strengths of science.

There is no need for these fakes - evolutionary theory has plenty of solid evidence behind it.

Jonathan Wells? That is a laugh. His misrepresentation is well know. Tell me this John? What original research has Mr. Wells done in the area? What has he published? You will notice that his works avoid the same type of review that uncovered the very example you provide from Yale. Why is that?

 

[Ron21647]

Everything I answer a question I get 10 more questions. Sibley and Ahlquist were accused by Yale University of bad science, you can read it yourself at:http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/amsci.html

If you want to start to deal with all of the frauds & fakes that we find in evolutionary science that is fine, I will start to research that. A good place to start would be with Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) because he exposes a lot of the fakes and the fraud. Here is a good place to start: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/SurvivaloftheFakestpt1.html

The fact that you were able to summarize over 100 years of fakes and frauds into two lines of text says a lot. As for Wells, all of the examples in his book were known to be fakes or frauds long before his book came out, and it was scientists in the appropriate fields that exposed them. All Wells has done is start fires so he can put them out.

Ron

 

[JohnR7]

Jonathan Wells? That is a laugh. His misrepresentation is well know. Tell me this John? What original research has Mr. Wells done in the area? What has he published? You will notice that his works avoid the same type of review that uncovered the very example you provide from Yale. Why is that?

Are you trying to suggest that someone with a PHd from two different universities is unqualified? All that Wells has done is to put together an arguement against text book Darwinism. We can get you a copy of his book for about $5 plus shipping if your interested. I am sure that it has been a big hit among creationists with school age children.

 

[JohnR7]

The fact that you were able to summarize over 100 years of fakes and frauds into two lines of text says a lot.

I do not specialize in fakes and frauds. I was asked to back up something I said and I backed it up. Other people have researched this and I am sure if someone were interested there is a lot of material available. The only time I usually deal with them is when they are promoted on this forum as being real science.

 

[Beastt]

I do not specialize in fakes and frauds. I was asked to back up something I said and I backed it up. Other people have researched this and I am sure if someone were interested there is a lot of material available. The only time I usually deal with them is when they are promoted on this forum as being real science.

The problem, John, is that you keep bringing up hoaxes that were exposed by scientists long ago. And not one of them, nor the culmination of them does one little thing to undermine the validity of evolution today. You keep claiming that much of evolution isn't science, then to back your claim, you bring up things that were tossed out years ago. These things aren't part of evolution today yet evolution today is still so sound and so solid that, as pointed out by others, it is accepted world-wide by scientists regardless of their religions. The only exceptions to this are the few fringe researchers who have taken vows to ignore any evidence their research exposes which contradicts scripture. Those vows are the reason that their research cannot accurately be called science. Their conclusions precede their findings.

You can't claim that because a handful of people have been dishonest about their research that it taints the work of the vast majority. You tend to expect people to believe that your objections to the validity of evolution are based on "bad science", hoaxes and frauds. But it is readily apparent to anyone who has followed even a few of these threads that your true objection is that what science has shown contradicts the Bible and you continue to insist that if it disagrees with the Bible, it must be wrong. When one chooses to place their beliefs behind a book with the wild and twisted origins and history of the Bible instead of sound, repeatable, scientific observation, there just isn't much anyone can really do to help them out of their mire. Denial is among the most powerful tools of the human psyche. But it should be allowed to serve only as a temporary buffer against psychological trauma and not as a life's pursuit. Superstition should never supercede sound observation.

 

[At Peace Without God]

John..

I think your problem is (and from reading scores of your posts - you got a problem) that you can't differentiate between the underlying principal at stake and the minor details - you just cant see the wood for the trees.

The point people time and again make to you is that regardless of inconsistencies, corrections, errors, fakes and 'bad science' the whole concept (evolution and science in general) is quite robust.

The things you point out constitute a tiny fraction of 1% of the work done by thousands of highly intelegent and well qualified individuals over centurys of time. This is the nature of science.

The other aspect of science is that it welcomes criticism of findings because its quest is knowledge, not justification. There are a tiny minority of scientists who will fake results and findings in an attempt to gain kudos however they are very quickly exposed by their peers as frauds and I doubt very much if any of them have been successful in perpetrating their fraud such that it finds its way into accepted scientific principa.

Scientists argue endlessly about the validity of methods, results and possible implications of what they find and they do it in such a way as to make your attempts at debunking look like a deranged hissyfit.

The massive irony for me is that if we apply the same kind of enquiry that you attempt on science to christianity, creationism, islam, hinduism, reflexology, spirit channeling, astrology, irridology, numerology, clairvoyancy, ghosts, UFO's and everyother superstition - they crumble into contradictory nonsense almost immediately.

Saying 'evolution is not scientific' is like saying 'christianity is not a religion'

Perhaps you should start a new thread called piltdown man - just type piltdown man 100 times into the textbox to get it out of your system

Piltdown man is NOT important to the principal of evolution - even when people thought Piltdown man was real. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!!

 

[flashwizard]

If science is constantly changing, and new 'evidence' is disproving 'old evidence' then what's the point of using general term "science" as an argument for proving anything. Since all that you say now will be disproved later because science is evolving, it seems absured that the term is counted as evidence enough to refute anything. The christian faith is not science and that is why science will never be able to refute nor destroy it.