[uncommonsense]

The point of this article, and one I always try to make being a scientist, is that evolution is NOT science. It's a theory. The idiots I debate ascribe science to evolution because creationism "is based on faith" therefore evolutions is science.

Science is based on the scientific method and evolution does not rely on science as such.

[Moonman62]

The point of this article, and one I always try to make being a scientist, is that evolution is NOT science. It's a theory.

I never knew that sciences and theories are mutually exclusive. Thanks for clearing that up.

[JRandomFreeper]

The scientific method always starts with a theory. Testing follows. If the theory was wrong, theory is adjusted, rinse and repeat.

That is the scientific method.

Theory: Heavy objects fall faster than light objects. That was given truth for many, many years.

Test: Drop cannonballs off a tower.

Result: They hit at the same time.

Rework Theory.

/johnny

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Science is based on the scientific method and evolution does not rely on science as such."

So what was the daytime high temperature in Dallas on April 5, 2011?

Oh you're going to go through the archives of a Dallas newspaper to find it? But that's not the scientific method. There's no measurement involved. That just involves looking at past information and making some theoretic claims based on historical data.

I guess we'll never know that the daytime high temperature in Dallas was on April 5, 2011.

Darn.

[Fiji Hill]

The point of this article, and one I always try to make being a scientist, is that evolution is NOT science. It's a theory.

So a theory cannot be science.