And Darwin's theory has no more place. If you want to teach it, do so in a hippy-liberal coffee shop. Not in school, at least not in a science class. Maybe in a history class, perhaps. But in a science class? Nope. The scientific method is simply incapable of dealing with origins.
False.
The theory of evolution is a science because it is approached using scientific methods.
It could also be studied in a history class, or a philosophy class, using the particular methods of those disciplines.
The scientific method is capable of dealing with origins. However, origins are a completely separate study from the theory of evolution--scientists know this, but science-deniers apparently do not in spite of being repeatedly advised of the differences between these two fields of study.
The theories of origins (abiogenesis) are in their infancy, unlike the theory of evolution, which is well supported by fact and theory.
In the US, the primary opposition to the theory of evolution comes from a few fundamentalist religions. Individuals frequently attempt to use the trappings of science in their arguments, but they have to so distort and misrepresent actual science that they quickly expose their intentions.
On these threads we see the weirdest science imaginable: just a couple of recent examples are carbon 14 dating spanning millions of years and the second law of thermal documents. Those of us who have actually studied science can readily tell who is posting apologetics (defense of religion) and who is posting arguments based on actual science. Unfortunately, as of late we see little actual science.
I decided to cruise over to dictionary.com and get the definition of "science".
It's a pretty broad term, you could call quite a few things "science" and fit with in the dictionary definition. I'll go with you and call Darwin's theory "Science". Of course, I'll toss "Junk" in front of it, but let us call it "Science".
It could also be studied in a history class, or a philosophy class, using the particular methods of those disciplines.
The scientific method is capable of dealing with origins. However, origins are a completely separate study from the theory of evolution--scientists know this, but science-deniers apparently do not in spite of being repeatedly advised of the differences between these two fields of study.
Ah, a light touch of ad hominem dusted in there for flavor.
The theories of origins (abiogenesis) are in their infancy, unlike the theory of evolution, which is well supported by fact and theory.
Theory of evolution supported by other theories? Sounds a bit circular. It's also attacked by contradictory theories. Supported by facts, sure. Also attacked by other facts which refute the same theory.
For example, the idea of irreducable complexity. Easily demonstrated in a classroom, pass out some mousetraps and ask students to remove a piece and still have a functional mousetrap. One can observe irreducable complexity in the biological world, strip away the outer wall of a single cell organism and observe the results. Start disassembling an amoeba and there will be a point where it will die. How then did the amoeba come to pass in the first place if it cannot survive without all of it's components in place all at once?
So here is a a concept, irreducable complexity, deomonstratable as fact, reproducable, observable. Why is this idea somehow unworthy of consideration as a legitimate antagonist to Darwin's theory? Why is Darwin's theory sacrosanct and other theories dismissed as so much religious rubbish?
In the US, the primary opposition to the theory of evolution comes from a few fundamentalist religions. Individuals frequently attempt to use the trappings of science in their arguments, but they have to so distort and misrepresent actual science that they quickly expose their intentions.
So what? If somebody has faith in God, and also wishes to put forth the theory that the complexity of man is beyond what could be achieved by random evolution, how does that invalidate the theory? If I were to point out that most adherents to Darwinian evolution are hardcore athiests who donate to the ACLU and the DNC, does that invalidate Darwin's theory on the basis of it's proponents? I think not. Expose all the theories to the harsh light of blind objectivity, and see what remains, but don't discard them simply because you don't like the proponents or their purposes.
On these threads we see the weirdest science imaginable: just a couple of recent examples are carbon 14 dating spanning millions of years and the second law of thermal documents. Those of us who have actually studied science can readily tell who is posting apologetics (defense of religion) and who is posting arguments based on actual science. Unfortunately, as of late we see little actual science.
Ah, more appeal to authority; the ol "We're the overlords, you peons just run along now..." talk. I'll give it a shot. Those of us who have actually got a relationship with God are saddened to see people living in a body God created, walking on a planet God formed, possessing a unique soul like no other living creature, seeing with their own eyes that man and man alone possesses a belief in the Divine, and yet not coming to an acceptance that God actually exists; instead choosing to see themselves as being a single step past the hunchbacked ape on the ol' Darwin chart.