And gravity is only a "theory" too.
The difference is that experments can be desogned and do show the effects of gravity in a predictable manner. Any good theory can predict future behavior given initial conditions. This can be done even by HS physics students in Lab.
OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution. Also no mechanism is described to explain how the DNA changes other than 'random' mutation. This is inadequate to describe, the rapid, massive changes seen over relatily short periods of time in the fossil record.
Most dramatically there is no experement to show how life evolves from inorganic or organic chemicals. At best there are experments that show how some amino acids can be cooked in a lab from inorganic chemicals.
This part of biology is VERY soft science, it's not like physics or chemistry where there theories grounded in math and experement that can be described and produce predictable results.
There is work that has described order 'spontaneously' springing from disorder when energy is added to the system. This suggests a very different universe than the dumb random universe.
Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.
his bio at U of Texas: http://order.ph.utexas.edu/people/Prigogine.htm
Stuart Kauffman's stuff about self organization in complex systems is also interesting. He applies his insights to evolution, but this approach could also be used in ID models.
Ultimatly science has not way to prove HOW the univevse came into exixtance, and how the initial conditions were what they were. The conditiosn that allow the universe we live in to exist (life and all).
All God had to do what bring the universe into existance with the correct conditiosn and God's 'design' will unfold according to the 'design'.
People of Faith can 'believe' in God and his primacy as the creator and Atheist can say God doesn't exist and wasn't neccesary for the universe to exist, neither side can 'prove' scientifically their position.
The current confilict over evolution is politics and not science. I am dismayed by the censorship being applied towards ID. That is not science. Both sides should be allowed to present their moldels, and supporting arguments.
several inaccuracies...
1. Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of speciation through mutation and selection known colloquially as "the theory of evolution"
2. Random mutation is one described and statistically predictable (meaning: given a large population of operant genetic samples, a known period of time, and known environmental factors, the rate of mutation is predictable even though the precise loci of individual mutations cannot be predicted) mechanism. Another is polyploidy. Another is viral insertion.
3. you evidently do not understand the second law of thermodynamics, and misapply it in your starting assumptions.
4. there is no censorship of ID - there is open dissection, analysis, and rebuttal of it as non-science. It has no positive data, describes no mechanism, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable.
Correct.
OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution.
Also no mechanism is described to explain how the DNA changes other than 'random' mutation.
Again, completely false. Try to learn something about a field before you attempt to critique it.
This is inadequate to describe, the rapid, massive changes seen over relatily short periods of time in the fossil record.
You sort of "forgot" to include your evidence for this assertion, or at least a citation.
And in actual fact, when researchers *have* compared rates of genetic change with the fossil record, they find that the two are in quite good accord.
Please stop posting your wild presumptions as if they were facts.
Most dramatically there is no experement to show how life evolves from inorganic or organic chemicals. At best there are experments that show how some amino acids can be cooked in a lab from inorganic chemicals.
Again, please stop posting your presumptions as if they were fact. There is a vast body of published research on that very topic -- research didn't stop after the 1953 Miller/Urey experiment, as you so ignorantly presume. PubMed has close to 300 published papers on just the RNA World scenario, for example.
But in any case, evolutionary biology is *not* abiogenesis -- they are two different and distinct fields. Try to learn the difference. Evolutionary biology remains valid no matter *what* may or may not be discovered about how/where life originally arose. Similarly, the science of meteorology doesn't depend in the least on how the atmosphere originated.
This part of biology is VERY soft science, it's not like physics or chemistry where there theories grounded in math and experement that can be described and produce predictable results.
Frankly, you really haven't a clue. Your statement is utterly false.
There is work that has described order 'spontaneously' springing from disorder when energy is added to the system. This suggests a very different universe than the dumb random universe.
Not at all, but it may look that way to someone who doesn't know much about science.
Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.
Fine, get back to us when he has more than "hints".
Stuart Kauffman's stuff about self organization in complex systems is also interesting. He applies his insights to evolution, but this approach could also be used in ID models.
I highly doubt that.
People of Faith can 'believe' in God and his primacy as the creator and Atheist can say God doesn't exist and wasn't neccesary for the universe to exist, neither side can 'prove' scientifically their position.
That's nice, but it's totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution. Evolution is not atheism, and there is a vast amount of evidence supporting evolution.
The current confilict over evolution is politics and not science.
Thank you for admitting that the "ID conflict" is politics by the ID people, and not science.
I am dismayed by the censorship being applied towards ID.
There is no censorship of ID. Try to crank the hysteria level down a few notches.
That is not science. Both sides should be allowed to present their moldels, and supporting arguments.
And they are. Happy now?
Unfortunately, though, "ID" has no models and lousy supporting arguments, so it's getting laughed off the stage as it fully deserves. And that's why it doesn't belong in science class, and isn't gaining acceptance in the scientific community.
That is wrong in two ways. First, the theory is based on much more than fossil record interpretation. Second, evolutionary does make predictions.
I think it would be fair to say that we do not yet have the means to make detailed predictions in even moderately complex ecologies.