I have to agree, there is no way to directly test for evolution over millions of years. Isn't it nice that humans are so good at problem solving and pattern recognition? With those abilities we've developed ways to observe indirectly and extrapolate from those observations. We see the patterns in those observations and can predict where they lead and can 'post'dict where they've been. We are remarkable animals.
"You can check fossil records and find some evidence of evolution. However, it's a huge jump of faith to extrapolate that and say that the world evolved from some form of primordial sludge at the beginning of time. Even then evolution cannot explain where that primordial sludge came from.
Why should evolution explain the primordial sludge? The ToE is an explanation for what comes after that sludge has produced life. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, it is far too young to have many answers yet.
What tells us that we evolved from that far back is the evidence of common descent. We share much with other species who share the same recent ancestor and less with those species who share a more remote ancestor. The nice thing about science is that we get to make predictions based on the theory. If the prediction holds then we conclude that we are on the right track. If the prediction does not hold then we realize we've either done something wrong or the theory is incomplete or incorrect.
When testing the ToE, we predict that we will find a fossil that will share some features with an older fossil and share features of a newer fossil, putting the unfound fossil somewhere in between the two we have found. Interestingly enough, we have done just that. We have found many fossils that fit in between two other fossils that not only share a few common features but share diagnostic features. They fit in the chronology. They fit in morphology. They fit in ecology. If we want to show that common descent is true, all we have to find is one such fossil. We do not need to have fossils from every single lineage to show the validity of common descent.
"Evolution simply can't explain how the things got there that started evolving, or what set them on that path.
You are right. That does not invalidate common descent.
"If not being able to be proven makes it not be science, evolution is not science.
No science is ever proven. We can have confidence that it is correct, based on successful defense against falsification, but proofs are for math only, and even then the word proof does not mean the same as the common usage of the word. Since 'proof' as you mean it is not a requirement of science, then you have not shown evolution to not be science. There are, however, other criteria that do determine what constitutes a science.
"There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
That may be true, but that does not make those questions a part of science. Answering those questions is more a part of theology than of anything else.
"Excluding intelligent design as a possible theory isn't science. It's the suppression of science.
It's the suppression of science if and only if ID is science. So far it has not met all the requirements of science.
"Actually we don't have the means to prove or disprove scientific theories, or they're no longer theories. If we can prove it it is considered a law, not a theory. The scientific process is the search for a way to prove or disprove a theory.
You are partially right, the scientific process does try to falsify a hypothesis. However, a theory is never promoted to a law, they are different qualifiers. A theory is always an ongoing struggle to increase our knowledge.
"Exactly, you just contradicted your assertion that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because it we haven't found a way to prove it.
No, that is not what is being said. What is being said, is that ID is not falsifiable; there is always the possibility that a designer was involved whether the object under study appears to be designed or it appears to be natural. Science requires that all wrong hypotheses that make up a theory be eliminated. Without the ability to falsify hypotheses, the theory loses all purpose and usefulness. This is the case with ID. There is no way to falsify it, therefore we never know if it is right or wrong when using it to diagnose some object.
"Absolute BS. How can you test that the world evolved from nothing at the beginning of time?
We don't. That is not the job of biologists, nor the purpose of the ToE.
"Then they apparently don't know what science is. There isn't an invisible wall between science and religion. A honest scientist will tell you that there's much more about this world that we don't understand than we do understand.
Then he will tell you, as a scientist he has no ability to deal with the supernatural. He may think about it, believe it, even desire it, but science by its very nature deals only with the natural. ID tries to deal with the supernatural and the natural. However, dealing with the supernatural makes ID inherently not science.
"This is why PHDs are Doctorates of Philosophy in a certain discipline. This is because the more you learn, the more you realize how little we really know. If you forget that and close yourself off from possible theories because of dogma, you're limited your ability to learn through the scientific method.
No one is closing science off from alternate theories unless those theories are not theories in the scientific sense, such as homeopathy, or do not meet the criteria for science, like ID.
"ID is a valid scientific theory.
Afraid not, not in its current incarnation. It may be at a later date, but not today.
"Evolution is a valid scientific theory.
Yup.
"People who say that one or the other is not are not doing so on the basis of science, but on the basis of blind faith. That may be faith in God, or faith in something else.
untrained: There's no way to test for evolution over millions of years either.
You can check fossil records and find some evidence of evolution. However, it's a huge jump of faith to extrapolate that and say that the world evolved from some form of primordial sludge at the beginning of time. Even then evolution cannot explain where that primordial sludge came from.
You just admitted that the fossil record is evidence. That's one sort of test. There is also the manifest evidence -- and more of it every day -- from genetics. All this evidence points in exactly the same direction, and none of it contradicts the theory of evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory about origins, so your question about where the primordial sludge came from, fascinating as it is (really), doesn't apply.
Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved.
Evolution simply can't explain how the things got there that started evolving, or what set them on that path.
Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be.
If not being able to be proven makes it not be science, evolution is not science.
No scientific theory is ever proved. In this evolution is exactly the same as every other scientific theory.
There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
Not in science.
Excluding intelligent design as a possible theory isn't science. It's the suppression of science.
All scientific theories are subject to testing. What's the test for id? What does the theory predict (i.e., "If id is true, then facts a, b, and c will emerge").
G: "Right. You also have to have a means of attempting to prove or disprove it."
untrained: Actually we don't have the means to prove or disprove scientific theories, or they're no longer theories. If we can prove it it is considered a law, not a theory. The scientific process is the search for a way to prove or disprove a theory.
We don't ever prove theories, but we do look for evidence and for possible disproof. Theories don't "graduate" to laws.
G: "For the perhaps billionth time this month, no scientific theory is ever proven. Why should the theory of evolution be different?"
untrained: Exactly, you just contradicted your assertion that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because it we haven't found a way to prove it.
Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted.
G: " ID does not rise to the level of a scientific theory because it can't be tested by any known method, and it predicts nothing."
untrained: Absolute BS. How can you test that the world evolved from nothing at the beginning of time?
Please note that your question had nothing to do with mine, so it was non-responsive.
Your objection to the theory of evolution is based on a false premise (that evolution includes something other than speciation and what happens over long periods of time), and if it were stated correctly, so as to eliminate the matter of origins, it would still be wrong. When he proposed the theory of evolution, Darwin noted many possible tests for the theory, and they've been met both in ways he expected and in ways he never anticipated.
G: "That people who do not accept ID believe that God does not exist is contrary to fact. There are many right here on FR who believe in God, who understand that the theory of evolution is science, and that ID isn't."
untrained: Then they apparently don't know what science is. There isn't an invisible wall between science and religion. A honest scientist will tell you that there's much more about this world that we don't understand than we do understand.
We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do. Your note about an honest scientist is completely true, by the way. I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do. What keeps science and religion in different realms, I would say, is the need for evidence in science and the need for faith in religion. While there may be room for evidence in religion, there is no room for faith in science. (Do not read this as an attempt to belittle religion; it's not. I merely point out that they're different).
This is why PHDs are Doctorates of Philosophy in a certain discipline. This is because the more you learn, the more you realize how little we really know. If you forget that and close yourself off from possible theories because of dogma, you're limited your ability to learn through the scientific method.
And injecting any given religion into science is injecting that religion's dogma.
ID is a valid scientific theory.
Evolution is a valid scientific theory.
ID is not a valid scientific theory for a number of reasons. There's no way to test for it. It rests on proving a negative and an argument from astonishment, which is a logical fallacy ("It is impossible for 'x' to have happened, therefore it must be id"). And it makes no predictions.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution has withstood many tests over roughly 150 years. Transitional fossils, lacking in Darwin's day, have been found all over the world. Genetic mapping has demonstrated that certain animals are related to each other in ways we hadn't suspected. But none of it has given any scientist reason to doubt the overall theory. It's unquestionably science.
People who say that one or the other is not are not doing so on the basis of science, but on the basis of blind faith. That may be faith in God, or faith in something else.
We clearly disagree.