Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Yes but apparently you don't:
I. The scientific method has four steps
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
So you see, the heart of the scientific method is experimentation with measurable and repeatable results. Observing fossils is not an experiment and making an interpretation that A evolved into B is not an experiment. Evolution theory has steps 1 and 2 only. It doesn't have 3 or 4.
Furthermore, the fossil record is at the heart of the anti-evolution argument anyway. But that's another issue. The bottom line is, Maxwell's electromagnetic equations are not a theory in remotely the same way as evolution. Every piece of electro-magnetic equipment in the world runs on Maxwell's equations.
Last Thursdayism makes similar claims. Couldn't everything have been created last Thursday? There is no explanatory power in such theories.
Have you tried clicking on my screen name?
Which makes the ultra-fierce support of evolution a puzzling phenomenon, unless the reasons are more emotional than intellectual.
The real issue, when it comes to defending evolution, is not that the creationists object to the theory, but that they ignore the evidence. You would see exactly the same reaction by scientists if a significant number of Americans believed that the Earth was flat.
The creation model in Genesis is not testable since it is not reproducible without the cooperation of the Creator.
Of course it's testable. The Genesis account says that the universe and the Earth are a few thousand years old; several independent methods date them as being of order 15 billion years old and 4.5 billion years old, respectively. The Genesis account says that the Earth was covered by a flood a few thousand years ago. This would have led to gross geological effects that have been shown not to exist. The Genesis account says that trees and grasses existed prior to the sun; the fossil record reveals a long history of life on Earth before the existence of grasses and trees, which could not have occurred without the sun.
Right. See you in roughly several million years?
What of it? The universe is the way it is, and not how we would wish it to be. It will take billions of years to confirm our prediction that the sun will become a red giant; does that mean the standard solar model is not science? Scientific theories are required to be falsifiable, not necessarily conveniently falsifiable.
As a matter of curiosity, what does the evolution of man theorize we will be in another million years?
Different, or more likely, extinct.
We can't predict what the weather will be for more than a few days. Does that mean that we have no scientific understanding of our atmosphere?
You point me to a 'last thursday sect' and you're pointing at a group of irrational people. Sorry, but it sounds like something scientists made up to attempt to make ID look bad. There is no logic behind it whatsoever. And anyone who claims there is no logic behind creation is irrational. Maybe it can't be proved but it can't be disproved either. No matter how convinced one is that there is no God, there will always remain the chance that they're wrong.
If God created life and all the species on earth, then either He left tracks or He didn't. He didn't.
And of course, Darwin was no atheist, although he moved closer to atheism as he got older. But first & foremost, Darwin was a scientist.
Did you know I became an atheist at age 13, not because of anything whatever to do with evolution? It just struck me that it's, ummm, intellectually indefensible to believe in a supernatural person who nobody sees and who is only able to communicate with those people who already fervently believe in him - and then only telepathically, so that there never is any intersubjectively verifiable evidence that he was really there. If I did believe in God, I'd still believe in evolution because I'm not going to disbelieve my lyin' eyes.
Antique religious practices amounted to attempts to communicate directly with the spirit world using oracles, prophecy, idols and idolatry, divination, electrical gadgetry such as the ark of the covenant, etc.
Given the manner in which the words "prophet" and "prophecy" permiate every other book of the Old Testament, it is astonishing that the word "prophet" occurs only once in Genesis, i.e. the vague reference to Abraham as "God's prophet", after the flood. One possible interpretation of this is that, prior to the flood, communication with the spirit world was direct and natural, and did not require anything resembling oracles or prophecy.
There is reason to believe that the human mind and brain were originally hardwired for a form of communication as far above anything we now have as anything we now have is above smoke signals. How anything like that could evolve, of course, is just another problem for evolutionists.
Julian Jaynes "Origin of Consciousness" describes the manner in which such capabilities were ground out of the human race by a process of attrition as they became progressively more disfunctional and as the practice of idolatry turned the world into an insane assylum for hundreds of years after the flood.
Nonetheless, vestiges of a few such capabilities remain. A google search on the two terms 'military' and 'remote viewing' turns up over 6000 hits, and I assume this means that the U.S. military does not have the luxury of ignoring scientific developments because they are politically incorrect or because they break paradigms. One such article which might serve as a starting point:
Likewise the king of France in the 1400s did not have such a luxury. The Catholic church, apparently making up in thoroughness for anything they might lack in celibacy, took several hundred years to analyze the case of Joan of Arc, and ultimately determined that at least some of her activities required information that she had no way of having other than for paranormal means; they cannonized Joan in the 20'th century.
Rupert Sheldrake is a former director of studies in cellular biology at Cambridge University. His studies with dogs who appear to know when their owners are coming home are seen on cable channel programs. The most fabulous case of remnant telepathic capabilities in animals is that of Nkisi, an African grey parrot involved in animal communication studies in New York. Sheldrake's "Seven Experiments Which Could Change the World" is nearly a must read along these lines.
Religious practices and social organization based upon such phenomena broke down before the time of Christ and were in disrepute by Roman times. Christianity amounts to a new kind of religion, in which it is acknowledged that we know the spirit world through faith, and not via direct contact.
There actually are a handful of neo catastrophists who believe in evolution; I am not one of them.
The most major arguments against evolution are:
Let me say again, I don't think you're understanding what evolution is. Mastiffs and chihuahuas are bred by selectively BREEDING OUT unwanted characteristics. BREEDING OUT, that is, REDUCING a gene pool, will not get you from bacteria to baboons, or from worms to woodpeckers. You can only do this by selecting and applying NEW information.
Most non evolutionists (including most creationists) ACCEPT the idea of "change over time," (how else could you have the divergence of the human race(s)?), but they DON'T accept addition of complexity over time. Seen through this matrix, the great majority of "examples of evolution" break down (ie, eohippus-->horse: the sequence of toes 5-4-3 and down to 1 toe is a reduction, a degradation) though it may be advantageous to a horse, it is NOT a more complex form.
Ahem, "oh numb one???" Oh well.
You're over my head, and all I can give you is an answer you won't like, 'to everything there is a purpose.'
What is evolution's reasoning behind this? I mean, we need vitamin C. Why would the ability be destroyed? Serious question, I'm curious.
Huh??? That's not even wrong, it's nonsensical. Maybe you want to rephrase the paragraph?
How is Last Thursdayism any more irrational than any other Young Earth sect? Several independent dating mechanisms show the Earth to be around 4,5000,000,000 years old. Assuming 4 days or 4000 years still miss the mark by some orders of magnitude.
It says no such thing.
Cal's right on the money. Pro-Darwinist bigotry is no different than any other kind of bigotry. Only its proponents are an order of magnitude more zealous than a Holy Land crusader.
Call me irrational if you will, but I have a whole lot harder time believing the earth's been around that long than I do believing the earth is young.
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.