Replies

The sciences of Geology, Biology, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics (yes, Astrophysics), Paleontology, Botany, Taxonomy, Zoology, Physics, and their many subdisciplines have all produced findings which converge in the Theory of Evolution in its modern form. To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.

Horse manure

Evolution is susceptible to falsification just like any other scientific theory, and and it shares no special privilege that should insulate it from criticism...nor should it.

If evolution falls, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may.

Physics right now is becoming increasingly subject to a similar problem, in that, most physicists are drawn to string theory, and If it turns out to be incorrect, then that will have a great impact as to the progression of knowledge in classical/particle physics.

That wouldn't be the fault of science though, but rather scientists.

Rhetoric like yours does no true service to science.

"Horse manure"

No, csense, all of those disciplines I listed do have findings which contribute to the Theory of Evolution. A lot of people who criticize the Theory of Evolution fail to recognize what it really is, which is an attempt to synthesize the findings of many scientific disciplines together in one larger theory which explains the origins of species. To reject the Theory of Evolution requires that its constituent pieces be dealth with in some fashion. This in a necessity in any scientific theory which represents a synthesis of findings, as is the case with the Theory of Evolution.

"Evolution is susceptible to falsification just like any other scientific theory, and and it shares no special privilege that should insulate it from criticism...nor should it.

If evolution falls, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may."

That is true of all scientific theories, since they must be disprovable. The problem with the expression of your viewpoint is that you seem to be arguing that somewhere out there is observed evidence presented scientifically which suggests the Theory of Evolution is flawed. That tactic surfaces again and again on these crevo threads but, in spite of all attempts to the contrary, no other scientific argument has been advanced to this date which undermines the basics of the theory. There are, of course, lively debates within evolutionary science and within the various the scientific disciplines whose findings contribute to our understanding of evolution, which could impact the way in which we view it. But there is no debate within any scientific discipline as of now which would tend to undermine the broad outlines of the theory. There has been no falsification of evolution. Is it ever possible that there could be? Yes. But then it's also possible that the Law of Gravity could be falsified too.

"Physics right now is becoming increasingly subject to a similar problem, in that, most physicists are drawn to string theory, and If it turns out to be incorrect, then that will have a great impact as to the progression of knowledge in classical/particle physics."

Yes; string theory is becoming ever more attractive because the indeterminate science of sub-atomic particle physics just leaves too many scientists unsatisfied that the truth of the material world cannot be known, which is one of the basic underpinnings of science. But as an example offered to undermine the validity of the Theory of Evolution, reference to string theory really fails because its solution will dramatically reduce our view of "randomness," which will go a long way to explaining dynamic models of change in many scientific disciplines whose findings contribute to our understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

"Rhetoric like yours does no true service to science."

I submit I have been most respectful of science.