Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.
Actually, I use the basic tenets of evolutionary theory all the time when I am thinking about my experiments. As far as the types of results I should be looking for, and how I should interpret what I see, the theory is highly predictive.
Science does not and has NEVER worked like that. First...observations of facts that are not explained by current scientific knowledge. Second....formulation of a hypothesis that explains both the old and new facts. Third....verification that further discovered facts do or do not support the hypothesis. If yes.....hypothesis is "promoted" to theory. If no....formulate new hypothesis.
Science ALWAYS works from the very specific to the general and NEVER the reverse, although it continues to be tested by explanation of further new observed facts. And there are other ways to "test" theories outside of lab experiments.
Nobody has any problem with the theory of plate tectonics, but no laboratory experiment has ever been done (or can be done) to prove or disprove it. But it has survived the tests of explaining newly discovered geologic facts quite nicely.
There was a testable prediction that a precursor to a tetra-pod would be found at a particular location in a strata of shoreline of a particular age, and they found them.
I predict that if I expose a bacterial culture to heat stress, the bacterial mutation rate will increase, increasing variation, and those variations that are more resistant to heat stress will increase within the population.
Scientists use the theory of evolution because it explains and predicts. They do not use the dogma of creationism because creationism has never produced anything of any real world value as far as use and application.
Absolutely agree b/c you can never re-produce thousands let alone millions and billions of years in a lab.