Nothing in science is ontologically certain.
No theory (outside mathematics) is ever “proved”.
Every hypothesis is “confirmed” only by failures to disprove it.
Every theory is only accepted as “confirmed” until some future test succeeds in disproving it.”
In order for an idea to be a scientific hypothesis, it has to have a specific mechanism that can potentially be falsifiable by testing or forensic observation.
Examples of specific testable mechanisms:
-evolution by natural selection
Spirited: In summary of the first paragraph: the underlying foundation of modern natural science and evolution is metaphysical nihilism which means that as evolution is always in motion there is nothing we can ever know with the slightest degree of certainty. C.S. Lewis understood this, thus he described natural science and evolution as magic science-—a very apt description.
As for the claim that evolution by natural selection is a testable mechanism: wrong.
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of importance to all truth-seekers.
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also honestly admitted that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism of the spiritual dimension, but so are its’ two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that immediately contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind (soul/spirit/ghost in the machine)while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. Due to this major disconnect from reality, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination (mind).
In Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: “The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason.”
2. Imagination: “...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature.”
In conclusion, all three theories originated in the mind (spirit). As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
Well, since we're not "anti-science" here, I guess that makes us all "pro-fraud".
First of all, he was only talking about natural selection, not all of "Darwinism." His concern was that it's hard to know what organisms are most suited for selection except by seeing which ones get selected, which makes the theory somewhat tautological. Even so, he wrote, "It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems."
And second, he later changed his mind about even that much, writing, " I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."
The theory of evolution by natural selection: Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.
For a given environment, assuming that the living population already exists and that there is a variation of genetic traits in that population, those traits that enable making more babies than the other traits become more common. Split the population in two and put the the two groups in different environments, you'll end up with two different sets of traits being selected for.
This is untestable?
"Soul: “The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason.”"
Have you even looked at human history? Did you even read the Bible instead parroting what your pastor said? The romanticism of the early nineteenth century had sown the seeds of the West's destruction. It was the progenitor of progressivism. Your average low-information voter is a very base and instinctual being, the typical human.
"In conclusion, all three theories originated in the mind (spirit). As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual."
The brain's function is determined by genetics, and since the mind is what the brain does, your instincts and personality (largely genetically determined) are based on inherited traits. Note that human population groups are in different environments. If you actually understand this and natural selection, the implications are going to be very, very, politically incorrect.
So how many times have I instructed you on the correct answer here: it's not "metaphysical nihilism", it's "methodological naturalism" that defines what is, and what is not "science"
If you cannot get that distinction straight in your mind, FRiend, you will be forever confused, and ranting insanely.
So work on it, until you grasp the idea.
Spiritual nihilism was not required, and was never practiced by many of our greatest scientists.
spirited irish: "Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also honestly admitted that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program.
By this he means that not only is Darwinism of the spiritual dimension, but so are its’ two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it."
Then Popper is simply ranting insanely against science in general, from a religious/philosophical perspective -- all of which may, or may not, be entirely correct, but is irrelevant to what science actually is, and does: natural explanations for natural processes.
If Popper, or "spirited irish" say that science is inadequate to answer many philosophical questions, that's all well and good, but it's a little like criticizing a cat because it's not a dog.
Well, duh, no real cat wants to be a dog.
So, if you say it's not a dog, you are actually complimenting the cat, and so with science: to say that science can't answer religious-philosophical questions is simply to affirm that science is still doing what it was originally intended to do: provide natural explanations for natural processes.
spirited irish: "In conclusion, all three theories originated in the mind (spirit).
As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual.
In short, all three theories are frauds.
They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense.
All of science (i.e., "Darwinism", "empiricism", and "observationsalism") is based on the assumption of "methodological naturalism".
Science itself makes no assumptions regarding philosophical, or ontological, or metaphysical naturalism.
All of that is stripped away from science and remains in the realms of philosophy or religious beliefs.
So, if you wish to assert that Genesis is a more accurate description of Creation than various scientific hypotheses (i.e., "Big Bang", evolution, etc.), that is your perfect right, provided you don't pretend your beliefs are somehow "scientific", since they are not.