>> Why doesn’t evolution have to meet that criteria?
And since when are unproven theories of any kind considered science?<<
Evolution and every other serious accepted theory has to meet that criteria.
I’m not a biologist - but one way that could be done is to predict things about fossil sequences and DNA from evolutionary theory. Biologists will tell you many correct predictions are made from evolutionary theory.
Bear in mind that scientific theories are never “proved” the way theories in math can be proved. They are only accepted based on the evidence and usefulness of the theory. Usefulness has to do with the ability to predict correctly.
So all major scientific theories are “unproven” but they are all useful at predicting.
>>Both ID and evolution are religion, or faith based. You need to have a ton of faith to believe either. Much more faith, I would say, to believe in evolution than a Creator.<<
It doesn’t take much faith for me to believe in God. Jesus made a good analogy with a grain of mustard.
Science is only based on faith if you don’t understand the science. If the science is sufficiently beyond one’s knowledge, it appears as magic and does require faith.
Much of medicine and biology, I do take on faith - faith in the scientific process and community but its faith based on experience studying other parts of science for myself.
That’s why I don’t have a problem with people who don’t understand something about science. Its only when they try to force teaching based on non-science I have a problem.
Those are great answers to those questions-— but again, Gonzalez’s research has literally nothing to do with trying to undermine TOE-— his target is the Mediocrity Principle, not Darwin.
Awesome tagline!
You must admit, though, that scientists use the language of metaphysical certainty to express results. At best, it is "the best guess we can come up with so far."
I can live with this IFone understands that the theory of evolution is not something that any person can reify, so that in a strict sense, no one can know it, as one much understand by studying an actual organism. That the devil is in the details is a cautionary maxim in appoaching a theory that tries to explains so much, much grander in ambition than Einstein's general relativity theory.
Evolution is not science, it meets none of the criteria or definitins of the word science.
Evolution is not science, it meets none of the criteria or definitions of the word science.