Science vs. Evolution

[Cassiterides]

Science is supposed to be based on observations, and repeatable, reliable experiments, which limits its focus to the present.

The scientific method entered the dictionary in 1810:

''The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''.

But "Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

Yet nothing a evolutionist believes is scientific, consider the following:

1. That life appeared on earth two or three billion years ago, or that the earth is billions of years is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record.

2. The idea that things 'evolve' i.e an ape to a man is not observable. The theory of evolution simply has never been observed. This is something evolutionists even themselves admit from time to time, G. Ledyard Stebbins for example admitted in his Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1:

''No Biologist has actually seen...evolution of a major group of organisms''

Conclusion

The theory of evolution is a faith, a belief (a religious theory). It is NOT a scientific fact. If you disagree, then you would have to explain why the scientific method (see above) does not support the theory of evolution, since evolution is not observable or testable in anyway. This also applies to the age of the earth.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And anyone even vaguely familiar with the scientific method would agree with you that evolution is not a "scientific fact". Just like gravity is not a "scientific fact", nor is the germ theory, or electrical theory or anything else.

There are NO facts in science, only theories. What distinguishes one theory from another is the amount of supporting evidence each has. And the ones that have lots of supporting evidence, and no contrary evidence, like the theory of gravity, theory of evolution, and theory of electricity, tend to be regarded by scientifically illiterate as "facts". They aren't, but for all practical purposes they are, at least until some new theory that better explains the observable evidence comes along.

 

[shinbits]

^ excellent post

 

[Cassiterides]

Thank you for agreeing evolution is just a theory. Our next step is to adress the issue of why it is being taught in schools as 'absolute fact' when it isn't even science (doesn't adhere to the scientific method).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Thank you for agreeing evolution is just a theory. Our next step is to adress the issue of why it is being taught in schools as 'absolute fact' when it isn't even science (doesn't adhere to the scientific method).

No one disagrees that evolution is a theory.

It is not taught in schools as an "absolute fact". It is, however, taught in schools because it is the theory that best fits the observed evidence.

And it most certainly does adhere to the scientific method, i.e. hypothesise, compare hypothesis to observable phenomena, refine hypothesis to better explain observable phenomena, repeat.

 

[Shemjaza]

Thank you for agreeing evolution is just a theory. Our next step is to adress the issue of why it is being taught in schools as 'absolute fact' when it isn't even science (doesn't adhere to the scientific method).

I just know I'm wasting my time... but you should know that repeatable doesn't mean that every single step has to be domentrated one after the other in a lab. We can find many independant lines of evidence that all demonstrate evolution. Genetic, fossil, and we have seen evolution of populations in labs (including speciation and development of new traits).

So if we have multiple lines of evidence of wide scale evolution over a long period. AND we have a demonstratable mechanism on how evolution can happen over the short term. AND we have no evidence of a mechanism that would stop this over the long term, what possible reason is there to doubt it?

(I find it interesting when Christian creationists use the "where you there?" argument given that we have no records of writing by Jesus Christ or by the people who actually met him... only later adaptions of oral tradition from long after his death.)

EDIT

But "Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

Would you call a crime convicted with DNA testing and fingerprints a fact... or a "strongly advocated faith-point"?

(Yet again I'm allways confused by the negative attitude some Chreationists appear to have towards "faith".)

 

[Tielec]

Quibbling over semantics is probably unproductive, but as they say: "The devil is in the detail".
Puns aside.

There ARE facts in science, a fact may be that in "experiment A" the subject exhibited a runny nose.

The theory that explains how this happened is Germ Theory.

A FACT is that an apple fell off a tree.
Gravity is the theory that explains this (to be precise Einstein's theory of relativity).

Then there are laws, which are generalisable explanations for a collection of observations

Put succintly,
A Fact is WHAT happened.
A Law is what happens over and over again.
A Theory is how and why the what happens.

If I may wax poetic,
The OP clearly mistakes his own ignorance as endemic in the scientific population. WE know what the meaning of the terms you are using really are Cassiterides... Who are you hoping to fool ?

Perhaps yourself.

 

[tanzanos]

Thank you for agreeing evolution is just a theory. Our next step is to adress the issue of why it is being taught in schools as 'absolute fact' when it isn't even science (doesn't adhere to the scientific method).

So according to you; the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Gravity, are not scientific? You obviously do not know the meaning of the Word THEORY when used in science:


A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The "theory of evolution" is the framework that best explains observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences.
The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.
In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made that contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

 

[Tielec]

Ninja sneak post deflates tanzanos much better post...

Always watch your back, I could be anywhere, waiting... watching, until... BANG I post a couple of seconds before you do...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

$10 says we never see drive by poster again

 

[sfs]

It's always a choice moment when a non-scientist, who has never stepped foot inside a scientific lab and who has never read, much less written, a single scientific paper, triies to tell scientists that what they do for a living isn't science.

I'm sorry, but evolution is part of science. In fact, it's the backbone of biology, which even creationists generally recognize as science. It's recognized as science by scientific funding agencies, professional organizations, research universities, and scientific journals, by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Foundation, the Library of Congress, and the Dewey Decimal System, by philosophers of science, science bureaucracies, historians of science and sociologists of science. If you think evolution is not science, then you are deeply confused about either evolution or science, and probably about both.

 

[Cassiterides]

''It should be remembered...that real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''

- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

There is no way of knowing what happened before the historical documentation of the eyewitness testimony of man. Therefore if you believe the earth is billions of years, that remains scientifically not provable. We don't have a time machine, all evolutionists can do is parrot guesses and theories...

Regarding evolution, it remains a fact that it has never been observed. No one has observed something 'evolve' i.e a fish to a land walking specie, or a monkey or 'hominid' to man. Evolution is not observable. If you want to believe in it that's fine but don't claim it as science.

Science is what we can observe, test etc. Evolution is pure fiction. Where are the examples of evolution in process? quoting fossils proves nothing since they are dead. if you think evolution is science where can it be observed?

 

[sfs]

$10 says we never see drive by poster again

Could well be, but it is worth noting that the same person posted the same material on another forum (something called "religiousforums"), and has been responding there.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

''It should be remembered...that real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''

- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

There is no way of knowing what happened before the historical documentation of the eyewitness testimony of man. Therefore if you believe the earth is billions of years, that remains scientifically not provable. We don't have a time machine, all evolutionists can do is parrot guesses and theories...

Regarding evolution, it remains a fact that it has never been observed. No one has observed something 'evolve' i.e a fish to a land walking specie, or a monkey or 'hominid' to man. Evolution is not observable. If you want to believe in it that's fine but don't claim it as science.

Science is what we can observe, test etc. Evolution is pure fiction. Where are the examples of evolution in process? quoting fossils proves nothing since they are dead. if you think evolution is science where can it be observed?

Evvolution HAS been observed. If I post you a list of examples, would you even bother to read it?

(re: $10 says drive by poster is never seen again,

Dear Cassiterides,

Thank you so much! A $10 donation has been made in your name to PFLAG Australia. Because of contributions from people like you, we will be able to continue our work supporting young gay and lesbian people and their families. http://www.pflagaustralia.org.au/ )

 

[SithDoughnut]

There is no way of knowing what happened before the historical documentation of the eyewitness testimony of man. Therefore if you believe the earth is billions of years, that remains scientifically not provable. We don't have a time machine, all evolutionists can do is parrot guesses and theories...

Or look at fossil records, DNA, etc.

Regarding evolution, it remains a fact that it has never been observed. No one has observed something 'evolve' i.e a fish to a land walking specie, or a monkey or 'hominid' to man. Evolution is not observable. If you want to believe in it that's fine but don't claim it as science.

No, it's science. You just don't understand what the word 'theory' means in scientific terms.

We have also observed evolution. Why do you think we have to regularly update vaccines and medicines?

Science is what we can observe, test etc. Evolution is pure fiction. Where are the examples of evolution in process? quoting fossils proves nothing since they are dead. if you think evolution is science where can it be observed?

That made me laugh. So dead things can't be evidence? I'd advise you let the police know; they need to be told that autopsies prove nothing.

I have a question: Who observed God creating the universe?

 

[tanzanos]

There is no way of knowing what happened before the historical documentation of the eyewitness testimony of man. Therefore if you believe the earth is billions of years, that remains scientifically not provable. We don't have a time machine, all evolutionists can do is parrot guesses and theories...

Regarding evolution, it remains a fact that it has never been observed. No one has observed something 'evolve' i.e a fish to a land walking specie, or a monkey or 'hominid' to man. Evolution is not observable. If you want to believe in it that's fine but don't claim it as science.

Science is what we can observe, test etc. Evolution is pure fiction. Where are the examples of evolution in process? quoting fossils proves nothing since they are dead. if you think evolution is science where can it be observed?

Do you have a recorded testimony of your conception? Has anyone actually witnessed your journey as a sperm up until you met the egg? No? Oh well then you are just a figment of my imagination then.

 

[tansy]

No one disagrees that evolution is a theory.

It is not taught in schools as an "absolute fact". It is, however, taught in schools because it is the theory that best fits the observed evidence.

I'm not saying whether evolution is true or not here. But I would just like to mention that certainly in schools (up to age 14 at least..I wouldnt know after that) and on TV, it certainly comes over as being absolute fact in the main

 

[tanzanos]

I'm not saying whether evolution is true or not here. But I would just like to mention that certainly in schools (up to age 14 at least..I wouldnt know after that) and on TV, it certainly comes over as being absolute fact in the main

The ToE is the most peer reviewed theory in history. It has undergone the most scrutiny and has passed with flying colours. There is no question as to whether life forms evolve or not.
If there is a sound scientific theory then it is ToE!

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm not saying whether evolution is true or not here. But I would just like to mention that certainly in schools (up to age 14 at least..I wouldnt know after that) and on TV, it certainly comes over as being absolute fact in the main

It's treated like absolute fact the same way that gravity is treated like an absolute fact.

I think it would just confuse 14 year olds if we started trying to explain how nothing outside of maths and logic is actually a fact. I think starting them off with the current scientific theories and then explaining to them the rest later is the best option. It's not as if they're being forced to believe it.

As for TV, it depends entirely on what channels you're watching.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science is supposed to be based on observations, and repeatable, reliable experiments, which limits its focus to the present.

The scientific method entered the dictionary in 1810:

''The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''.

But "Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

Er, no. In science, a 'fact' is a datum or piece of knowledge whose truth is so well established as to be undeniable. For example, the existence of atoms is a 'fact', even though no one has directly seen one.

Yet nothing a evolutionist believes is scientific, consider the following:

1. That life appeared on earth two or three billion years ago, or that the earth is billions of years is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record.

Equivocation. 'Observation' in science does not mean the same thing as it does to the layman. Obviously, we didn't literally observe the Earth forming. But we have sufficient evidence to be pretty damn certain what happened; that is science. The fact that no one literally saw with their own eyeballs what happened doesn't take away from the fact that the objective evidence unanimously supports this, that, and the other.

2. The idea that things 'evolve' i.e an ape to a man is not observable. The theory of evolution simply has never been observed. This is something evolutionists even themselves admit from time to time, G. Ledyard Stebbins for example admitted in his Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1:

''No Biologist has actually seen...evolution of a major group of organisms''

Irrelevant. We don't expect biologists to have seen the evolution of major taxa, since this takes millions of years. Nonetheless, biologists have accrued mountains of evidence supporting the claim that it did happen. Indeed, over the past 150 years, we've collectively sat down and watched populations over time. The result? Evolution. We've seen new species arise exactly as predicted by the theory, naturally in the wild, accidentally in human habitat, and artificially in the lab.

Conclusion

The theory of evolution is a faith,

Faith is belief without reason. Belief is the assertion that a claim is true. Thus, faith is the assertion that something is true without any reason, evidence, or rationale that said claim is true.
Since evolution has both theoretical support (given the premises, evolution of major taxa would indeed have occurred) and evidence (mountains, literally mountains, of evidence support it, evidence which has come from almost every field of scientific endeavour).
So, no, the theory of evolution is not a faith.

a belief

I'll grant you that.

It is NOT a scientific fact. If you disagree, then you would have to explain why the scientific method (see above) does not support the theory of evolution, since evolution is not observable or testable in anyway. This also applies to the age of the earth.

See above. In short, you severely misunderstand what it means for something to be scientific. The theory of common descent is a predictive and testable explanation that has withstood 150 of falsification tests. We have more evidence that it is true than we do for the existence of atoms.