Skip to comments.Evolution Isn't Science
Posted on 11/29/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by kathsua
The new standard for teaching science in public schools should prohibit teaching religious beliefs like evolution as if they were the equivalent of scientific theories.
Science should be defined as using experimentation and observation to discover information about physical reality. Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.
Contrary to a popular myth pushed by those who want to make science a substitute for religion, science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe.
The idea that the universe came out of a black hole (the "Big Bang" theory) became popular in the 20th century, but it is hardly a new explanation. An account attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather) first described an event in which "all of creation" came out of an invisible object with a fiery light inside (i.e., a black hole) thousands of years ago. Many cultures use the word "egg" to describe the object the universe came out of.
The idea of one species changing to another, particularly the idea of humans being related to apes, was around long before Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species." Darwin was reluctant to say we are a monkey's grandchildren, so he just suggested that we are distant cousins. The ancient Tibetan religion had no such inhibitions and claims that we are descended from monkeys.
Evolutionists ignore the fact that humans use gradual changes to develop complex equipment. Development of biological life through gradual changes implies that an Intelligence developed life.
Evolution makes some sense in very tight circumstances. Evolution does not describe how life exists or started. All of our observations show that life comes only from life. In other words all the chemicals on earth will never ever spring to life from dead material. The Big Bang ignited the whole universe a million degrees and I would think that would pretty much sterilize any material that thought about springing into life right there. With a sterile universe where can life come from except . . GOD?
At least get the book's title right:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (London: Murray, 1859)
The reality about evolution is that the grand idea of randomly thumping together life from raw matter is both abstract and absurd in comparison to what you do in both organic and physical chemistry. When it comes to assembling complex organic compounds from raw materials, you do not sit around and expect it to happen by accident. In fact, the probability is so minute that a complex organic compound will form without you guiding the reacion is... well, let’s just say it would be a miracle for you to sit around and expect it to happen. It’s like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and expecting the chimp to write some magnificent script for the next blockbuster film... Either way, the idea of life randomly coming into being from raw elements by accident is something we, as of yet, cannot experimentally replicate. And one of the real important, defining aspect of science is the experimental aspect, producing results from a controlled test.
The important key to evolution is to understand that it is limited in terms of what it does offer, and understanding what it gives in practicality, as opposed to the pseudoscience some people like to use.
“It’s one reason I think science is overrated.”
“Hard” science is fine - it can be verified and repeated via experimentation. Evolution is definitely not hard science - it is simply speculation.
Evolution is simply speculation. That’s good.
The crackpot fauna is really thick. Evolution gone horribly wrong.
“Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.”
So this is never true? Or is it sometimes true and sometimes not?
Can long half-life radioisotopes that exhibit billions of years worth of decay, based on experimentation and observations about their physical reality be assumed to actually be billions of years old?
It's up to those making a claim to substantiate it.
It’s encouraging to see how retarded my children’s competition is.
Yep, math and science is useless stuff. Keep attending that bible school!
There is the good science, which is known as natural selection, and that’s a process we work with to model and try dealing with antibiotic resistance in germs, as well as pesticide resistance in pests. Microbes evolve, and this is easily observable, especially when one generation for a microbe is very short compared to the life of a human being, you can watch their lifespan over the course of days, and for a lot of microbes, if they’re not limited by resources, a generation can be minutes. However, regarding the origin of life, even evolution is a stretch to describe it, because experimentally, we haven’t proven capable of making life from non-living matter, we always need living organisms to make other living organisms.
Every experiment would have to be constantly re-run over and over again to be certain that all of the laws we claim still apply today, right now.
It's even worse though, because pretty much every experiment that measures the speed of light takes a finite amount of time - however miniscule - to complete. When the photon hits the photodetector at time t2, how can we be certain that it started out at time t1 which was in the past. So how can we even measure the speed of time unless we depend on mere data points from the past?
Science is based on the scientific method and evolution does not rely on science as such.
“Can long half-life radioisotopes that exhibit billions of years worth of decay, based on experimentation and observations about their physical reality be assumed to actually be billions of years old?”
The assumption is based on the radioisotopes becoming settled when the rock solidified, and assuming that there was a specific kind of composition that existed in the molten magma when the rock cooled.
Furthermore, the half-life is a projection, based on an exponential evaluation over a smaller time interval. Logarithms. Either way, the creation of the Earth is a good explanation, because only in science fiction, namely Titan A.E., could we figure out how to experimentally create the Whole Planet Earth and all life on it.
I never knew that sciences and theories are mutually exclusive. Thanks for clearing that up.
Adaptation not = evolution
Uranium decays through a series of transuranic elements on it's way to becoming lead. These transurnaics have varying half-lives and thus accumulate in the sample in predictable proportions according to the age of the sample. It is reasonable to believe that a specific sample may have formed with exactly the proportions of those elements required to present a false appearance of age. It is insanity to believe they all did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.