Using the Scientific Method on Evolution

[And-U-Say]

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science

I don't believe you. Not in any important sense. Sure, maybe you clean test tubes or sweep floors in a lab or run some piece of analytical equipment, but your understanding of Science has deep flaws.

and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

Evolution is a theory, special creation is not. Not even close.

And any good scientist understands how he arrives at conclusions based on our observations.

I believe you are referring to evidence. Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. This same evidence directly contradicts special creation. The Scientific mind comes to the conclusion that special creation is simply not true.

And I will say again.

I was afraid of that...

Laws just don't become laws. There is a method at arriving at a law. And that method is scientific. It is in steps. Step A to step B to step C.. But it's clear to me that many are not understand that method.

No. No, not at all. As mentioned above, laws are derived from theories (well, mud of the time, sometimes not) and are description of practical phenomena, that is it. Theories are explanations and cover a lot more than a law.

 

[Jd34]

I have been a Scientist for 30 years working in the research area of a Fortune 50 company.

You are wrong.

Well, all I can say is that I am 45 years old and able to retire because I have made a wonderfull living in the field of Science.. And I don't think it's because I have been wrong about Science. Maybe I am missing something or people are misunderstanding what I am saying. Where am I wrong?

My spiritual walk has been based on faith in Christ. I don't think I am wrong in that department either, but often I hear too that I am wrong about that.

 

[bhsmte]

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

When you say "theory" I assume you mean a theory that would be considered a scientific theory, correct?

Please explain how special creation, would qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[whois]

well, it seems the scientists themselves can't agree to what hypothesis, theories, and laws means.

a law is not in the same class as hypothesis and theories.
a hypothesis has limited explanatory power.
a theory has a much broader explanatory power.
a law simply is. it makes no attempt to predict or explain any thing.
laws come about by observation only, while theories and hypothesis spawn each other.

-sourced from an old country girl.

 

[lasthero]

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

And any good scientist understands how he arrives at conclusions based on our observations.

And I will say again.

Laws just don't become laws. There is a method at arriving at a law. And that method is scientific. It is in steps. Step A to step B to step C.. But it's clear to me that many are not understand that method.

Every scientist in this thread and multiple links have disagreed with you. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

 

[Jd34]

When you say "theory" I assume you mean a theory that would be considered a scientific theory, correct?

Please explain how special creation, would qualify as a scientific theory.

Special creation is a concept as with any other concept subject to scientific review. Science questions everything!

Here is a link on the scientific method, hopfully people will understand wher I am comming from----- well, I just discovered i am to new to post links.

Boy, you guys are sharks around here! But I don't mind, I am happy.

 

[lasthero]

Well, all I can say is that I am 45 years old and able to retire because I have made a wonderfull living in the field of Science.. And I don't think it's because I have been wrong about Science. Maybe I am missing something or people are misunderstanding what I am saying. Where am I wrong?

You seem to think laws are some final evolution of theories. They're not. That's where you're wrong.

It's really that simple.

 

[bhsmte]

Special creation is a concept as with any other concept subject to scientific review. Science questions everything!

Here is a link on the scientific method, hopfully people will understand wher I am comming from----- well, I just discovered i am to new to post links.

Boy, you guys are sharks around here! But I don't mind, I am happy.

Sharks?

We are just asking you to support what you are stating.

Concepts are not the same as scientific theories. Why don't you tell us in your own words, what ingredients a theory would require, to be considered, a scientific theory.

 

[florida2]

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

And any good scientist understands how he arrives at conclusions based on our observations.

And I will say again.

Laws just don't become laws. There is a method at arriving at a law. And that method is scientific. It is in steps. Step A to step B to step C.. But it's clear to me that many are not understand that method.

'Special creation' is not a theory. A theory is a well-evidenced body of work. Creation theory does not, can not, fit into this definition.

Theories do not get upgraded into laws. Fact.

Germ theory will always be called germ theory. It won't be one day called 'Germ law'. Atomic theory will always be atomic theory.

 

[Jd34]

You seem to think laws are some final evolution of theories. They're not. That's where you're wrong.

It's really that simple.

I am talking about the process of how a scientist reasons. It's called the scientific method.

What is, is! But as human beings, we must first have to have an idea about something in order to test it. We are not all knowing as our maker.

Hypothesis jumps to a theory if it meets the criteria and a theory jumps to a law if it meets the criteria.

Lots of hypothesis and lots of theories but very few laws in comparison.

 

[lasthero]

I am talking about the process of how a scientist reasons.

And the scientists keep saying you're wrong.

Hypothesis jumps to a theory if it meets the criteria and a theory jumps to a law if it meets the criteria.

Wrong.

 

[MerlinJ]

Are you the Mary Baker Eddy kind of scientist by any chance? That would explain things.

 

[Jd34]

I am talking about the process of how a scientist reasons. It's called the scientific method.

What is, is! But as human beings, we must first have to have an idea about something in order to test it. We are not all knowing as our maker.

Hypothesis jumps to a theory if it meets the criteria and a theory jumps to a law if it meets the criteria.

Lots of hypothesis and lots of theories but very few laws in comparison.

Where am I wrong in what I just stated? And why am I wrong?

 

[crjmurray]

Where am I wrong in what I just stated? And why am I wrong?

A theory does not jump to a law. That is the where and the why.

 

[sfs]

Where am I wrong in what I just stated? And why am I wrong?

Your are wrong here: "Hypothesis jumps to a theory if it meets the criteria and a theory jumps to a law if it meets the criteria." Theories do not become laws. Can you name one instance of something that was originally called a theory and was then called a law?

 

[SteveB28]

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

And any good scientist understands how he arrives at conclusions based on our observations.

And I will say again.

Laws just don't become laws. There is a method at arriving at a law. And that method is scientific. It is in steps. Step A to step B to step C.. But it's clear to me that many are not understand that method.

And again you are wrong.

Laws are descriptive. They describe how various physical qualities interact. Boyle's Law, Newton's Laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, these are examples. F=ma is a basic law of physics that describes the acceleration of the mass of an object and the force that caused it.

The scientific theories provide an explanation for how and why these laws operate as they do.

To reiterate, one describes and the other explains. Please learn the difference.

 

[sfs]

As I suggested earlier, actual scientific usage of "theory" and "law" doesn't match standard descriptions very well either. Yes, "laws" are generally simple relations based on observation -- but they've also generally been around a long time. I can't think of any "laws" that have been named in the last 50 or even 100 years. The term "law" suggests an earlier understanding of nature and of science.

Use of "theory" varies, I think, between fields. It's usually described as a well-supported conceptual framework, or something like that. In evolutionary biology, I think conceptual framework might be a reasonable description, but it can be pretty hypothetical, as in shifting-balance theory, the neutral theory and the nearly neutral theory.

In physics, "theory" can match the standard description (e.g. General Relativity and quantum electrodynamics are often described as theories), but it can also be used to describe something like a mathematical framework for doing calculations. Thus heavy-quark effective theory and lattice gauge theory were two ways of doing approximate calculations that couldn't be done exactly. The full "theory", the one with the broad scope, explanatory power and strong support, is actually called a model: the Standard Model.

Basically, there really is no hierarchy or even taxonomy of models. They're just models of various sorts, with various levels of support.

 

[Strathos]

everything in the universe came from nothing.

The ToE claims no such thing.

 

[Jd34]

Thanks all, I understand where you all are coming from and i can agree with you on that perspective. However,I also can look at it as a process. A process such as Newton observing an apple fall. He first hypothesized why it fell, he then theorized about the concept of gravity and then he worked out the math and formulated Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton.

Is a law more absolute than a theory?

Is a theory more absolute than a hypothesis?

What if a hypothesis turns out to be more than just a guess?

What if a theory turns out to be more than a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something?

What happens when something falls outside of a law?

 

[And-U-Say]

Well, all I can say is that I am 45 years old and able to retire because I have made a wonderfull living in the field of Science.. And I don't think it's because I have been wrong about Science. Maybe I am missing something or people are misunderstanding what I am saying. Where am I wrong?

My spiritual walk has been based on faith in Christ. I don't think I am wrong in that department either, but often I hear too that I am wrong about that.

That is not much to say about your competance. Benny Hinn is worth 100 million dollars, that does not make him right.

And faith is a terrible thing to base your life on, you have not thought this through.