Well, I was with you until you called evolution “junk science.”
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.
While I totally agree with you, thats one of those issues on FR that is never resolved. I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree with each other when this happens.
You wrote: “The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.”
True.
Of course, though...there are several “theories of evolution”.
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter __are incompatible with the truth about man__. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70
Thank you.
There are many conservatives who recognize that the theory of evolution has almost overwhelming evidence to support it’s primary points. If the Earth is only 6000 years old then physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, and astronomy is wrong.
That said, when I look at the incredible variety of lifeforms and the amazing adaptions, I can perfectly understand why people see the Hand of the Creator. I have no problem with teachers showing critiques of evolution and the arguments of Intelligent Design alongside conventional biology.
The bottom line is that true science is not political.
Evolutionists like to claim this as though it supports their claim. Unfortunately, it's simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Logical fallacy, nothing more...
One can judge a theory's validity by the accuracy of predictions it makes. Can you identify a prediction evolutionary theory has made about biology that has been proven true by research? For guidance, consider the many predictions the theory of relativity made that have been proven dead on by spacecraft.
Also, can you identify a single drug, treatment or surgical procedure that has required evolutionary theory to be developed? If not, how could a theory be as fundamental to biological science as electromagnetism is to physical science and not affect the development of new medical frontiers?
Intelligent Design is the creation of life while Evolution is the reaction of life to its changing surroundings.
Of course there is still the Colossal Coincidence Theory.
Well; then let's call it "unproven" science, or "irreproducable" science.
Well, I was with you until you called evolution “junk science.”
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.
The theory of evolution is not fundamental to biological science. It is junk science and it does have a moral component. If the TOE didn't have a moral component, it would have been abandoned long ago.