Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
NEW What is Evolution? Resolves confusion about precise definitions of biological evolution.
If one assumes that 14c levels are constant. If one assumes radioactive decay rates are constant. If one assumes...
If I may be so bold, It isn't "if" that you don't like. It's the assumptive you don't like. "If" is fine if you like the assumptive. You're a closed minded idealogue - nothing more or less.
This auhor is so right! If you don't believe evolution is a religion, just try attacking it in the presence of one of its believers!
It is neither observable nor repeatable, and that lets it out of the "science" category.
Its purpose is to disassociate people from their Creator, so as to get them into hell, but not before they spread the big lie around first.
"So this clown wants to proclaim anyone that studies anything that has ever happened prior to the present is not a scientist? Hilarious."
He's right. He's a historian.
"The only folks on the current political scene who disagree with the theory of evolution in this manner get their impetus from the bible"
The only book ever written that contains truth only.
You are so right!
It is up to you to prove the existence of a designer or at least an intelligent design, if you want your position to compete with the very solid study of evolution. The human, for example, does not show much evidence of intelligence in its design. The lower back is faulty, the center of the eye is blind, and the species is nearly alone in its inability to manufacture vitamin C.
Alchemy cannot be proved but it's study led to gun powder and many other chemical compounds, quite by accident and apart from its stated goals. Astrology is nonsense but an occassional prediction came true and, hence, you have millions of believers today who read their horoscopes before they start their day. Ptolemy's observations were valuable in helping to force a re-look at the orbital mechanics of a supposed earth-centered universe.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a designer. BTW, how many discoveries have been made at the Discovery Institute?
I think most people know who da Vinci is with out specifing the first name but if that's your biggest quibble with me I'm okay with that.
"Can you supply evidence for ark and flood?
Not belief, but evidence? Any evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny?"
For me its that The Author not only has never been known to lie or be ignorant, but that, since he can see so far nto the future as to know how everything will turn out, that he creates the final, finished product first, unlike Henry Ford, who made a crude buggy and then spent the rest of his life refining it (that's real evolution).
God doesn't need to evolve anything because he sees all the way through the future. Don't forget that in your reasoning.
The first part of the first sentence is an admission that evolution is not a fact because it refers to "theories about the processes". The second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The strained parsing of words by evolutionists approaches that of Bill Clinton's "It depends on what you definition of "is" is.
At least you are honest about evolution not being testable.
BTW, I have never claimed that creationism is testable. In fact, I have been quite clear that neither creation nor evolution is testable. That is the very reason neither of them are really theories; they are models. it is the evolutionist who has had to twist the meaning of theory over the past several decades in order to claim that evolution is a theory. It also seems they have twisted the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Although there are arguments against elements evolution, every one is well refuted on places like Talk Origins .
I have nothing against teaching ID, as long as it’s done in some kind of social studies setting. Those who think it belongs along side evolution seem to placing their bets for their first piece evidence that would support their idea (and therefore making it a theory rather than a hypothesis) in the claim that evolution is impossible. A few of their arguments sound promising,… until their rebuttals are read on places like Talk Origins .
At least you are honest about evolution not being testable.That is the very reason neither of them are really theories; they are models. it is the evolutionist who has had to twist the meaning of theory over the past several decades in order to claim that evolution is a theory. It also seems they have twisted the meaning of the word 'fact'.
A “model” of how something works is a “theory”.
Evolution is no longer just a “theory”, but a science. There are various theories contained within evolutionary science, such as the bird from dinosaur hypothesis – but that is pretty well proven.
The facts of evolution are in evidence. Read the literature.
No it isn't. A model is a suggested explanation of how some system came into being or how said system works. Once a model is established, people can look for evidence that supports or contradicts the model and make adjustments that take those observations into consideration. It cannot be considered to be a theory until it is tested and those tests can be duplicated. Since evolution cannot, or at least has not, been duplicated, it is not a theory.
Evolution is no longer just a “theory”, but a science.
See above.
There are various theories contained within evolutionary science, such as the bird from dinosaur hypothesis – but that is pretty well proven.
I believe that there are relatively recent, within the last 3-5 years, admissions by some well-known evolutionists that admit this suggestion is incorrect.
The facts of evolution are in evidence. Read the literature.
No it isn't; and I have read the literature. The 'literature' is riddled with words such as 'possible', 'might', 'could', 'likely', etc. These words suggest nothing more that conjectures and guesses; not facts.
You have obviously never taken a course in logic. If you had, you would recognize the complete foolishness of your last post.
Yes. ID should not be taught in science class. Certainly not in public schools or in any private school I would pay for.
Based on the above, this article is a waste of time.
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.