Unscientific Theory

[Agnostic1515]

Hey guys,

I know this area is supposed to be for Creationists to post, but I'm not sure where to post to get answers...

so if this post gets deleted, so be it...

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

 

[busterdog]

Hey guys,

I know this area is supposed to be for Creationists to post, but I'm not sure where to post to get answers...

so if this post gets deleted, so be it...

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

Probably this is better moved to OT.

But, even that is restricted to those who accept the Nicene creed.

I am not sure if anyone says it is invalid as a theory.

Lots of people would argue it is poorly supported by evidence and certainly is not established conclusively.

All those arguments about what is and what is not science seem to me to be a lot of words that go nowhere.

This is not exactly directly on point, but have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEPqLKErXpI&feature=related

Ben Stein is smart guy. He uses no theology to say that anti-Darwinists have been shut down in rather un-scientific fashion. That is the institutional issue, not the evidential issue or the religious issue.

Ben Stein is no fundamentalist Christian, either.

 

[IrishRockhound]

From Wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

Bold mine. In scientific usage, a theory is an overall explanation of all available evidence that can be tested (and thus falsified), and that predicts what evidence will be found in the future. It is essentially equivalent to what used to be called a Law in science, i.e. Boyle's Law, the Law of Gravity.

 

[synger]

Hey guys,

I know this area is supposed to be for Creationists to post, but I'm not sure where to post to get answers...

so if this post gets deleted, so be it...

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

Yes, this forum is for Creationists to discuss and debate. There is some latitude for "fellowship" posts, which can include questions. If you are asking for how Creationists would answer this question, then the thread can stay here, for Creationists are the only ones who can answer it in this forum.

If, however, it becomes a discussion or debate between creationists and evolutionists, it is more likely to be moved to Origins.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Hey guys,

I know this area is supposed to be for Creationists to post, but I'm not sure where to post to get answers...

so if this post gets deleted, so be it...

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

In answer to your question, as far as I'm aware, science is about forming a theory and then proving it by experiment. If it can't be proved, or even investigated by experiment then we'r on shaky ground. Or one could try to support the theory with evidence. Which is what evolutionists do. However, an in depth investigation into the evidence reveals a conspiracy, (in my opinion). I have had doubts over the years about evolution. I can't imagine any scenario for the evolution of bats, and when asking evolutionists about this, they do not answer my question. I have moved on from that now, my original hunches are continuously being reveaved to me as true, as I read up on the subject, and find out what's really the truth about stuff. For instance the australopithecines. Reported as being bi-pedal. I took this as a given, until recently, when reading that two leading British evolutionary scientists were sent to the US to investigate the australopithicine fossils, and found that they were not biped after all. Also the homo-erectus, which I thought had a different rib cage from humans, apparently that's false as well. I've got to the stage now when I doubt everything these people say. As there is an agenda, which is to try and proove that there has been no creation. You only have to look at popular evolutionists, who can't seem to be able to not be anti-religious, and drag religion into their evolutionary philosophy. I have swung to and fro over the years, from evolution to creation. I am now a creationist of the 'day age' old earth camp. This opinion seems to me to be the truth about origins.

 

[busterdog]

In answer to your question, as far as I'm aware, science is about forming a theory and then proving it by experiment. If it can't be proved, or even investigated by experiment then we'r on shaky ground. Or one could try to support the theory with evidence. Which is what evolutionists do. However, an in depth investigation into the evidence reveals a conspiracy, (in my opinion). I have had doubts over the years about evolution. I can't imagine any scenario for the evolution of bats, and when asking evolutionists about this, they do not answer my question. I have moved on from that now, my original hunches are continuously being reveaved to me as true, as I read up on the subject, and find out what's really the truth about stuff. For instance the australopithecines. Reported as being bi-pedal. I took this as a given, until recently, when reading that two leading British evolutionary scientists were sent to the US to investigate the australopithicine fossils, and found that they were not biped after all. Also the homo-erectus, which I thought had a different rib cage from humans, apparently that's false as well. I've got to the stage now when I doubt everything these people say. As there is an agenda, which is to try and proove that there has been no creation. You only have to look at popular evolutionists, who can't seem to be able to not be anti-religious, and drag religion into their evolutionary philosophy. I have swung to and fro over the years, from evolution to creation. I am now a creationist of the 'day age' old earth camp. This opinion seems to me to be the truth about origins.

Interesting way of looking at this as an inherently suspicious area. I agree. Most of what I have seen of science raises more questions than it answers and often never finds a solid conclusions, except when supported by falsehood or wilfull ignorance.

 

[juvenissun]

Hey guys,

I know this area is supposed to be for Creationists to post, but I'm not sure where to post to get answers...

so if this post gets deleted, so be it...

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

What you heard is wrong.

[staff edit]

 

[mark kennedy]

Anyways, I frequently hear that Darwin's theory is unscientific, and that evolutionary theory is superstition, or just as dogmatic as literal interpretation of the bible.

So here's my question: What exactly defines a scientific theory? Why doesn't Darwin's theory meet those criteria?

Thanks in advance...

A theory as I understand it is the culmination of empirically tested hypothesis in a systematic series of true or false results. The modern scientific theory is a hypothesis generating machine that helps scientists to move into new areas of inquiry. Darwinism does nothing like that, it is actually an a priori assumption. In short, Darwinism is not an open ended inquiry but a close minded dogma of science that assumes naturalistic causation throughout natural history. Supposition is not science, it is in fact, a hindrance to a process that is supposed to be focused on directly observed or demonstrated evidence.

Genetics researchers involved in the comparative genomics related to the divergence of chimps and humans have rejected natural selection as an explanation. If Darwin was right that natural selection is the primary mechanism for adaptive evolution then there is no directly observed or demonstrated mechanism for a chimp/human common ancestor. That being true we are looking at supposition not science.

That's my take on it, opinions vary.