Replies

Is evolution a science?

Not to persuade you, but for the lurkers:
Is Evolution Science? It certainly is. Here's why.
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.

That's nice, but doesn't really answer the first question, the basic question - how do you state the theory of evolution? What is it? How does it read? Can it be stated, in one, two, three sentences? In other words, "Darwin predicted" and was proved right which proves - what? What was it he was actually trying to prove, when later proved right? How does that theory of his read, or more importantly, modified theories based on his from the present day? You mentioned Gould. He apparently introduced, with someone else, a notion quite literally to modify a key component of the theory.

In all of his writing, did the late Gould ever state - the theory of evolution. He published prolifically.

I have not been able to come in here for about a week or so because I have been out of town working, but I see that I have missed a lot of discussion.

Over several threads I have been waiting patiently for a decent discussion of the Theory of Intelligent Design, which I find fatally flawed, and its overlap with the Theory of Evolution and theories (there are several) of Abiogenesis. I have always tried to treat points of view in opposition to my own with respect, but in light of the recent events now occurring in public education I must say that I have reached a point where I must point out that proponents of Intelligent Design and opponents of the Theory of Evolution and, in many cases, opponents of theories of Abiogenesis must be held to account for the most basic error of all; they refuse to submit their own views to scientific testing, which means that they invariably retreat to either a religious justification which they believe trumps science or, with some exceptions to those who argue against Abiogenesis, they rely upon axiomatic reasoning rooted in mathematics that establishes a construct which is basically Nominalist in its form (its utility follows from its definitions). And I have now concluded further that it is this axiomatic reasoning which makes Intelligent Design a truly dangerous proposition, because it creates a body of jargon that presents itself as intellectually sound in its formulation, giving its adherents a list of catch-phrases they can rely upon in argumentation while simultaneously avoiding the meaning that attaches to any real study of scientific phenomena.

When presented as a free-flowing discussion with no other end than a search for truth, I can treat all of this as legitimate philosophical inquiry, since I believe philosophy should know no bounds. But when the proponents of Intelligent Design, who very interestingly seemed to have garnered the support of New World Creationists -- a very odd mix indeed I think, since Intelligent Design recognizes the evolution of species and even holds out the possibility that life on earth may have been created by extraterrestrial aliens -- go into the public schools and command science teachers to present their theory, which is not capable of being disproven and thus fails the critical test of being "scientific," they cross a crucial line with me. I place an extremely high premium upon education as a worthy social value in and of itself. When science teachers are commanded to present the Theory of Intelligent Design, which is not scientific since it postulates that higher levels of biological complexity cannot have formed as a result of natural processes without submitting its case to scientific testing, that Intelligent Design becomes a lie. For those who are attached to the theory as a reaction to their religious beliefs I must point out that truthfulness is at the heart of every major religion on earth. Why is it not here?

I know many posters on this board for whom I have great respect disagree with me on this and I apologize in advance if I have offended you. But I am not going to sit in silence while the study of science, one of the keys to a viable education, is undermined by those who refuse to submit theoretical constructs they wish to see taught in science classes to the rigors of scientific method.

If anyone wants to respond that Intelligent Design is scientific, I have one simple challenge:

State the Theory of Intelligent Design in a manner in which its precepts can be submitted to scientific testing capable of disproving it. And to anyone who wants to respond that the Theory of Evolution is not scientific, I suggest you take discostu's comments to heart, and take your hands out of your ears and listen. There are entire sub-disciplines within science that study evolution in its various aspects and the entirety of this body of knowledge can be tested against observed scientific evidence.