Suggesting that "evolution" as taught and believed today is science is simply the highest form of religious superstition and demonstrates significant ingnorance of what science is. Whether that ignorance is willful or not is irrelevent to the issue that evolution, as the Darwinists posit, is nothing but blind, zealous religious faith...
It is superstition in the highest form.
In fact, Darwinism can NOT stand up to the rigors of the scientific method as defined by Sir Karl Popper...
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=264
A form of the legal brief noted above was used to conclusively demonstrate that psychology, according to the scientific method, is a pseudo-science. A version of that legal brief has been used in many states throughout the United States and courts now routinely use psychiatrists rather than psychologists if either party objects.
This brief was adapted from both legal precedent, and is modeled after Sir Karl Popper's requirement to verify something is "science" rather than junk or pseudo science such as Darwinism.
Darwinism and evolution and believed and taught today is nothing but a zealous religious faith. And its blind faith adherents are in a panic and a huff becuase their religion is being challenged as the science fraud that it is!!
Evolution is a FRAUD!
Refuted by Popper in person, behold:
CR Quote
Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
I've read you on other forums, you make the same unsupported statements over and over on every crevo vs. evo thread that gets put up, and then take the opportunity to plug your website.
If you're going to criticise science, you need to find a reputable scientist to do it with.
The only fraud here is the above statement. The Scientific Method was introduced by Bacon about 500 years before Popper.
Popper gave us two important principles concerning science: the principle of falsifiability and the principle of verification.
Popper's Principle of Falsifiability states that in order for a proposition to be regarded as part of science, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false. An example of a field that might be affected by this is modern String Theory, since it’s all math and we don’t have or foresee any apparatus that might be used to verify or falsify the results. However, this obviously does not exclude evolution, since there are any number of observations that would falsify it.
Popper's Principle of Verification states that verification of a theory would require a positive result in every possible instance, most of which would remain in the unobserved future, and as such, no theory can be absolutely verified.
To summarize Popper’s two principles, no theory can be absolutely proven, regardless of the number of positive results, but any theory can be disproven by a single negative observation.
People, ignorant of science, of which I think you would probably be included, imagine that scientists believe in the laws of thermodynamics because they have been somehow “proven.” This is not the case, we believe in them because they have been overwhelmingly scrutinized and not a single case has been observed that would falsify them. As Popper pointed out, there is no way to “prove” anything in science.
I have seen many pro-evolutionists take the bait from people like you and try to argue that evolution is science in the same sense that physics is science. This is simply not the case as pointed out by a number of famous biologists, such as Ernst Mayr. Mayr, in “Toward a New Philosophy of Biology” points out that evolutionary biology differs from functional biology in the sense that evolutionary biology tries to answer the “why questions” as opposed to functional biology or physics or chemistry, which try to answer the “how questions.” For example, the functional biologist wants to know “how” our gall bladder works, whereas the evolutionist wants to know “why” we have one in the first place.
Evolution is a bit like what they now call “forensic science.” Is forensic science a true science in the sense that it advances under the guidance of the Scientific Method? No, I don’t think so. It’s just a collection of scientific tools to do more accurate detective work. However, forensic science does produce knowledge. Knowledge which jurors accept as being believable “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evolution is a bit like forensic science. It is a collection of methods borrowed from other fields to investigate biological history. Has it been proven? Not absolutely, but "beyond a reasonable doubt." This, as Popper has taught us is all that any science can do
By the way, I would suggest studying a little philosophy before you go around quoting philosopher. There are some people that actually read the stuff.
Please tell me you're kidding!