Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?


"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dXSgf.44$OK.1438@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific
> theory is defined as a "theory that explains scientific observations;
> scientific theories must be falsifiable." What this means is that in order
> for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can
> prove
> it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can
> never prove it-either true or false! For example, one could observe an
> orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There
> exists
> a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a
> valid
> theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be
> considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the
> sky,
> they will see changes in its color. If the same standards are applied to
> the
> theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must
> be
> able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there
> have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the
> first
> condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major
> evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not
> testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable. Recall the
> logical fallacies discussed at many philosophic websites. When something
> is
> dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called
> chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are
> not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to
> logical fallacies to validate their claims. This is best described by Dr.
> Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: "His [Darwin's] general theory
> that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive
> accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's
> time,
> a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support
> and
> very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive
> advocates
> would have us believe."As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a
> fact.
> It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is
> nothing
> more than a "highly speculative hypothesis." Can you imagine something so
> contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as
> fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how
> exactly
> is it scientific?
>
>

Bubba, That evolution does occur in living species is not a theory. It is a
fact and has been demonstrated many times using short lived species. Using
long lived species is a problem because we aren't all that long lived. On
the other had a few examples of change within a species can be shown in the
fossil record so drop dead. If there is one thing I hate is a lier for
Jesus. Jesus would have no use of liers. By your own rules that makes you
Satan's child and I have no use for devil worshipers.


.

Relevant Pages