Posted on 08/15/2005 7:01:06 PM PDT by gobucks
The Scientific Method: 1. State the problem 2. Make Observations 3. Form a Hypothesis 4. Do the Experiment 5. Draw a conclusion And this is where natural evolution breaks down, they cannot go from step 3 to step 4 because of the length of time required.
There isn't a single scientific method. There is a difference between the scientific methodology between an experimental science compared to a historical science. Evolution is partly a historical science so the method is slightly different.
1. Make Observations - in this case the fossil record, genome analysis, etc. These must be reproducable.
2. Form a Hypothesis - can be various hypothese about past evolution of life. Must be falsifiable.
3. Test hypothesis - this is done continously by testing it against more observations. If the observations contradict the hypothesis it is discarded or modified.
4. Repeat the process
This is the same historical science method used in geology, archeology and cosmology. Because evolution has passed so much testing it elevated to the level of a theory.
I haven't had that good a laugh in a while!! And today, working and toiling away, I needed it. Thanks!!
Right. It is the former that is the fact of evolution. The latter is theoretical, and is not fact.
But it is the presentation of the latter, i.e. natural evolution, as a fact that causes so much trouble in the classroom.
I'm just cutting through the BS to get to the 'obvious'.
Certainly.
Good science should have no problem with stating that the origin of life and the origin of the species might beyond the limits of science.
You've got two different problems there, though. Explaining the origin of life on earth is not currently a problem that science can readily approach - there are many proposed mechanisms, with the one unifying quality that they are all entirely speculative. And we should, naturally, label them as speculative, and not as fact. Perhaps someday, when we can zoom around the galaxy in our Star Trek ships, we will be able to observe origins elsewhere, which may give us a somewhat more solid idea of what may have happened here - it's not proof, but if, for instance, we see the same process occurring over and over again, induction can carry us to the logical conclusion. However, neither of us are likely to be around to observe such a thing, so I tend not to worry much about it ;)
On the other hand, the origin of species and the diversity of life on earth is, by contrast, a much more tractable problem. And it turns out that science has a rather good explanation for same - the theory of evolution.
It is here that I disagree. The natural evolutionists have proposed an explanation but have not yet come up with a workable mechanism. I want to stress here that my objection is not based on faith but what I consider poor science.
If the natural evolutionists wish to present their ideas as one possible explanation, fine. But let us not pretend that the evidence presented to date comes anywhere near what we could classify as fact. Let the natural evolutionist also be honest enough to acknowledge the weaknesses in their theory.
Let us consider an analogy for a moment. Science would tell us that babies come about when the father fertilizes an egg inside the mother, and the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb, whereupon the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, and eventually into a baby. A simplified version, to be sure, but not the only theory on where babies come from. An alternate theory might be that babies come from storks. Hey, why not? My daughter's current theory about my wife's impending birth is that Santa Claus will be bringing a baby brother or sister for her - it is due around Christmas, after all. Medieval investigators believed that a sperm was a tiny homonculus, a complete human, for which the mother's only contribution was as a vessel for development.
The problem is, although there are many possible explanations for where babies come from, only one of those theories is currently well supported by the evidence. And so it is with the origin of species - the theory of evolution is not merely one of many possible explanations, it is currently the best explanation, the one most in accord with the evidence available to us. Perhaps tomorrow the evidence will point elsewhere, but we are limited to what we have immediately available, as far as science is concerned.
I am sorry but a present there is little evidence to support the mechanism of a natural evolutionary process. Indeed the evolutionist cannot agree on which model to support. A full presentation of the theory would also present the difficulties (some would claim insurmountable) that go against the theory. At best all we have now is speculation.
To a certain extent, the adequacy of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder. There are, however, multiple, independent lines of evidence which corroborate each other to support the theory. The schools don't do much better at teaching the evidence behind evolution than they do at teaching algebra - nevertheless, the inadequacies of the public schools are not indicative of weaknesses in either algebra or evolution ;)
I notice you have not blessed us with any details of your scientific objections to evolution. Please feel free to go into the biochemistry as deeply as you need to make your case.
Darwin Ceentral has folks who can read and respond.
Set your decoder ring to R-9-Delta.
And that is the point. Feel free to present your theory with its evidence but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of other possible theories. Also, do not cry foul and "unscientific" when the weaknesses of your theory are pointed out.
I would suggest you take to heart the statement that you quote from Reinhold Niebuhr as your tagline and apply it to this discussion: "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt."
I'm weak with anticipation.
Of course I reserve the right to label unscientific assertions as unscientific. Do you have some special reason for asking us to chop our legs off?
Depends on what you mean by "legitimacy". A theory predicated on non-material causes is illegitimate on its face, scientifically speaking, so we can rule them out immediately as scientific theories - they may be theories, but they're not science. And even if we're presented with a legitimate alternative scientific theory, legitimacy does not imply adequacy, and why should we waste time on explanations that are inadequate for explaining the evidence for one reason or another?
Also, do not cry foul and "unscientific" when the weaknesses of your theory are pointed out.
Point out all the holes you like, and we can discuss them to see if they're really flaws, or simply misunderstandings. But, of course, even if they are real and serious flaws, pointing out flaws is not enough to overturn the theory of evolution - for that, you have to have a better scientific theory to replace it, not simply a list of complaints.
In the end, however, it is not up to me to disprove natural evolution but for the natural evolutionists to present his evidence and make it compelling. I have read this and I find it wanting.
Darwin Ceentral has folks who can read and respond.
Perhaps you can read and respond but you cannot spell: Ceentral? ;-)
On a serious note, you do yourself no favor by trying to portray those who do not accept the theory of natural evolution as just a bunch of uneducated rubes. This is just a cheap form of personal attack. There are plenty of well educated persons who take issue with natural evolution on strictly scientific grounds. Although I disagree with your conclusions, I take your ideas seriously and with respect. I expect the same in return.
This goes to the heart of my objections on how the theory of natural evolution is presented. Yes, a supernatural explanation cannot be properly presented within the natural sciences but this does not give the natural sciences license to insist that there must be a natural cause. It is also no violation of the canons of the natural sciences to state that the evidence to date does not present a natural explanation for the origin of life or of new species.
But, of course, even if they are real and serious flaws, pointing out flaws is not enough to overturn the theory of evolution - for that, you have to have a better scientific theory to replace it, not simply a list of complaints.
First, this would be true if the theory of natural evolution were compelling, which it is not. Until a workable mechanism is shown it is merely speculation.
Second, you are presenting a catch-22. You will allow the theory of evolution to be displaced only if another scientific theory can be presented. At the same time you are ruling out any non-naturalistic theory as being "unscientific" on the face of it.
But no one really cares what you think. The scientific community is comprised of millions of individuals, and has studied the problems you mentioned for over two hundred years. No one is particularly impressed by the difficulties you have getting up to speed.
I've been on these threads a long time, and I am pretty careful about who I consider uneducated. My list includes those who present the same tired things over and over without modification.
If you are impressed by Behe, perhaps you would honor us with a specific argument from Behe, and tell us if you are willing to drop your support if Behe's examples of ireducibility are not, in fact, irreducible.
If you were in fact, educated, you would know that punctuated equillibrium was co-sponsored by a great defender and admirer of Darwin, who considered its misrepresentation to be a great dishonesty.
I was unaware that we have elevated the scientific community to high priesthood with the power to enforce orthodox thinking upon the population at large. And to think, I was always taught that science was about debate and open discussion.
I've been on these threads a long time, and I am pretty careful about who I consider uneducated. My list includes those who present the same tired things over and over without modification.
Sounds like the evolutionists to me.
If you were in fact, educated, you would know that punctuated equillibrium was co-sponsored by a great defender and admirer of Darwin, who considered its misrepresentation to be a great dishonesty.
Yes, I am quite aware that it was presented by a defender of Darwin. At the same time I am also quite aware that it goes against Darwin's own theory.
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.