Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
bump
Science has not disproved evolution, nor shown it to be impossible. These are standard creationist claims, long since shown to be inaccurate.
There are many links at the following site which provide a more accurate picture of what science has to say about evolution and related subjects: Index to Creationist Claims.
Short of this one feeble argument against the theory of evolution, the rest of this article amounts to a call for censorship of evolution based on a dislike of the potential results of evolutionary thinking.
But I guess if you can't argue against the science, you have to do something, eh?
You are not familiar or discount the recent discoveries made by microbiologists and best popularly reported by Michael Behe. The best efforts of Darwinists have not been able to counter his reports on the discoveries which do what I said, prove common descent and minor changes and disprove evolutionary creation of new forms and species.
Behe's ideas have not fared well:
Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?
As more and more discoveries are made about the complexities and the knife-edge, perfect balance of life, you will have to change your mind. Many of Darwin’s “proofs” have been and continue to be discredited, while Behe’s contentions become confirmed.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
I know the creationist websites keep claiming that, but they have been known to distort, misrepresent, and selectively quote, as well as to ignore evidence which contradicts their beliefs.
If you are looking for accurate portrayals of what science is discovering, creationist websites should not be high on your list of sources.
Throwing around terms like ‘creationists’ or ‘creationist sites’ is a cheap trick. I have never visited a ‘creationist site’, and I believed in Darwinism most of my adult life until I learned of the advances in microbiology and remembered my statistics.
The advances in microbiology and statistics have not disproved "Darwinism." Behe's ideas have been shown to be invalid by mainstream science. His latest book backs off from many of the ideas he put forth in the 1990s.
Check the reviews I linked to in a previous post.
Nor has science proven evolution to occur. It is a theory. An idea in someone's mind. A guess. A figment of one's imagination.
Regardless of how strongly one believes said theory, a group of people believe said theory, or an entire population believes said theory, it is still a theory.
Regardless of how much education one has, or years of experience in any area one has, their belief in said theory does not make it fact. It is still a theory.
That said theory is often discussed as fact, does not make it fact. It is still a theory.
Irrespective of how many articles, reports, research papers, theses, dissertations, and textbooks present said theory as though it were fact, it is still a theory.
Attempting to present said theory as though it were fact is intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent.
Science deals with things that are real, that can be proven via direct physical observation, or via their effects on physical things, as in the case of invisible things like gravity, electricity, light, infrared heat, sound waves, radio waves, etc; and laws such as physical laws, mathematical laws, etc.
Evolution has never been proven scientifically. No one has brought forth any physical evidence proving an occurrance of evolution.
Support for evolution is comprised entirely of belief, conjecture, supposition, assumption, etc.
I have no problem with evolution if it is ever proven.
Until then it is a theory.
You are making a fundamental mistake in your estimation of the place of the theory of evolution within the world of science.
You are correct in that the theory of evolution is a theory. Evolution (the change in genome from generation to generation is also a fact, but it is the theory of evolution that explains the facts of evolution).
But your fundamental errors are:
1) In thinking that "theory" is equivalent to, as you say, "An idea in someone's mind. A guess. A figment of one's imagination." That definition is absolutely false; that is the way a layman might define the term, but that is not the way the term is used in science.
2) In thinking that there is some higher level of accomplishment in science than a theory. Neither a fact nor a law is higher than a theory. A theory, when well-supported, does not graduate to either a fact or a law.
Rather, it is your understanding of how terms are used in science that seems to be leading you astray.
Here are some good Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Given that your definition of "theory" is wrong from the beginning, your whole argument falls apart.
Since you attacked someone’s belief in creation, let me phrase my point this way:
Your belief in evolution is identical to their belief in creation.
You are on no more solid ground in your belief of evolution, than they are in their belief of creation.
Neither have been proven scientifically.
Throw up all the arguments and definitions you care to.
Science is science. It deals with things that actually exist, AND can be proven through observation.
Anything short of that is belief. Evolution is belief. Creation is belief.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, neither is more valid than the other, because neither have been proven scientifically.
You didn't read a thing I posted, did you?
Proof has no place in science. Science builds and tests theories.
The theory of evolution is a theory.
Creation "science" is a religious belief dishonestly masquerading as a scientific theory. It has not undergone the testing, affirmation, and successful predictions required of a scientific theory. It is being pushed as science (now under the guise of ID) in a dishonest attempt to get creationism into the high school science classes, where it has absolutely no business.
Those who say, evolution is "just a theory" and "it is not proven science" are either woefully ignorant of how science works, or blatantly dishonest in their arguments.
Until you can come up with better arguments, something that hasn't been refuted decades ago, I am not going to bother any longer with your posts.
You continue to post on in your own private dream world, completely divorced from the world of science -- which you think you are correcting!
Really, study some science before you try to teach scientists how to do their work. You would look less the fool if your definitions matched those of the sciences you are trying to correct.
You demand PROOF even though I have told you more than once that science does not deal in proofs -- science deals with data and theories.
Go back and read the definitions I posted and you might actually learn something. Then your posts might be worth reading.
Like I said, people of your mindset are dangerous.
Show me your scientific proof of evolution, or go away.
I’m not going to believe it merely because you believe it.
I can only wonder what other fantasies you believe.
One final test. Are you looking for evidence, or for proof?
You apparently don’t read very well either.
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.