Evolution debate persists because it's not science

The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

[GodGunsGuts]

Opinion

Monday, Feb. 23, 2009

Evolution debate persists because it's not science

By Raymond H. Kocot

...

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Darwin: "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."

More like the way Thomas Kuhn describes but not exactly scientific method, strictly speaking. The idea preceded any observation.

[editor-surveyor]

Let me guess: You’re a “Covenentalist?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Mammals...

Do you know what those are???

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Have you ever heard of a form of life called the MAMMAL?

[allmendream]

The ideas of Relativity preceded any observations that lended any support to the theory.

The formation of the Periodic Table preceded the discovery of many of the elements that make up the table, and preceded the formation of the theory of atomic orbitals.

In Science the idea often precedes the collection of data that would falsify or support the idea.

[allmendream]

Does evolution only work on mammals in your world?

[ColdWater]

If God did not mark the days until day four, how do we know how longs days 1 through 3 were?

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

[Cedric]

Get your frauds straight.

That's whay I got yuo for. Java man.

[ColdWater]

Mammals... Do you know what those are??

I thought bats were mammals but you have just about convinced me that they are birds.

[editor-surveyor]

Eschoir,
Does your parole officer know what you’re doing?

Aren’t you supposed to stay away from FR?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

My take is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Mammalian anatomy... Should I find nice little 5th grade cartoons of a penis and vagina to show you how MAMMALS evolve... or is it to difficult for you to comprehend a very basic factual foundation in evolutionary theory and genetic theory???

I am curious about the uneasiness certain proponents of evolution have about the topic of sexual reproduction and how it relates to evolution.

Please professor, explain... I'm waiting...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Right. So you are suggesting rational intuition has a sound epistemic foundation. Husserl, Brentano, Plato, Aquinas, St. Anselm agree.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Does evolution only work on mammals in your world?

Humans are mammals...

But please do explain to me how evolution operates in mammals... HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

SCIENCE PLEASE...

[ColdWater]

Mammalian anatomy... Should I find nice little 5th grade cartoons of a penis and vagina to show you how MAMMALS evolve... or is it to difficult for you to comprehend a very basic factual foundation in evolutionary theory and genetic theory??? I am curious about the uneasiness certain proponents of evolution have about the topic of sexual reproduction and how it relates to evolution.

I really have no idea what your point is. Make your point.

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

The Godless Evo-Atheists are too embarrassed by their obsession with everything gay so they avoid anything that questions their fetish for their *lifestyle*.

[bert]

Absolute bigoted balderdash

[allmendream]

I am more interested in you explaining how evolution ONLY works in (hetero)sexually reproducing species.

Do you wish to amend or correct your statement?

[ColdWater]

I think you and your companion Mr. Dash have something going on?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

John Scopes does look like the chronic masterdebator type.
And a little anxious. You may have a point.

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

And yet evo-atheists wallow in their bigotry for all too see. They should look in a mirror, if they can take image.