Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.
When just about every facet of a given “theory” fails to predict, it’s time to scrap the theory and come up with another one. And no, it is not necessary to keep the falsified theory in place until a new theory can be formulated.
I AGREE, these creationist have yet to explain the GEICO Cavemen!
Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.
More arrogant blasts of bilious bluster from the Lie-oteman.
Apparently one can only fault scientific theories in the past tense.
Most disciplines call these mistakes, but you guys just get to modify your theory. Cool.
1.4 Objections of evolutionists:-)
This section examines various objections evolutionists make in defending their theory’s false predictions and added complexities. . .
Ad hominem
Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has, like geocentrism, generated many false predictions and as a consequence grown more complex.
Well, let's see where the problem is.
From your perspective, what is wrong with the following statements:
1 Introduction Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects. 1.1 How to compare findings with expectations It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science. When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell? 1.2 Two examples Classical physics was elucidated in the seventeenth century. It explained how objects move and the theory worked well for many years until it was found to fail at very high speeds and in the subatomic world. Objects travelling near the speed of light and tiny particles did not obey the venerable laws of physics, and the new areas of physics known as relativity and quantum mechanics were required. Classical physics still worked well for traditional types of problems, but it was now understood to be a special case of the more general descriptions provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems obvious that classical physics ought not to be dropped. It simply has a limited domain of applicability. In this example, it seems reasonable to say that the new findings are not so much a problem for classical physics so much as a refinement. We learned more about how objects move, regardless of the precise relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics. [2] Geocentrism dates back to antiquity. The idea that the objects in the sky rotate around the earth seems quite reasonable. After all, the stars can be seen to move across the sky every night. So do the moon and planets, and the sun by day. Was not the earth at the center of the universe? But there are anomalies in these motions. Sometimes the planets move backwards, for instance, and the geocentric model did not always work very well. Its false predictions, however, could be accommodated by adding adjustments. The anomalous motions of heavenly objects were described with dozens of epicycles. This highly complicated version of geocentrism worked very well. The positions of objects in the sky, and even eclipses, could be predicted in advance. Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler. [3] In this example, it seems obvious that the failures of geocentrism are not merely a case of refining the theory. In this case it seems that the theory is false.How do you justify your second statement in light of the bolded and underlined portion above?
>>More anti-science nonsense from the Dishonesty Institute.
Apparently science is now forbidden to modify its theories when new data come to light.<<
Yeah, like GW.