Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


Jack Crenshaw wrote:
There is a huge body of scientific knowledge supporting the Theory of
Evolution. It includes everything from biochemistry to genetics to biology
to ecology to paleontology to geology. Let us know when you have some
contradictory evidence.


You are making a serious mistake when you try to defend a historical
science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics.

You are seriously confused about the nature of science if you make such
a distinction. Evolutionary science is no more or less an "historical"
science than is physics. We can observe evolutionary events happening
in the present. In evolutionary theory as in physics, inferences about
events which happened in the past (and in the case of physics in a far
more distant past than that covered by evolutionary theory) by
observation and experiment in the present.


It's a commonly used practice, but also one that is logically, if not
intellectually, bankrupt.


What is "intellectually bankrupt" is the assertion that such a
distinction can be made and has any relevance to the validity of the
evolutionary sciences as science.


As someone else on this thread has noted, physics (and math, and
chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method.

So are the evolutionary sciences. Incidentally, not everyone agrees
that mathematics is a science. It operates under a different set of
rules, and does not test hypotheses against the evidence as do what
some consider to be "real" sciences.

The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis,
Experiment, Observation.

No. The essence of the scientific method is the formation and testing
of hypotheses. These tests can be carried out as experiments, or by
observation. Incidentally, both means of testing are used in the
evolutionary sciences, as they are in physics.

When Newton developed his Theory of Gravity, he didn't do it overnight.
He proposed the theory (along with his three laws of motion), then he
and other folks effectively said, "Ok, let's see where this leads us."
They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the
predictions came true. Each time that a prediction proved true, it
added to the confidence in the theory.

By contrast, Darwin proposed a theory. All of his followers said
"Sounds good to us," and have been saying so ever since.

If you can write this with a straight face you are either profoundly
ignorant, or a bald-faced liar.

Various evolutionary theories had been proposed before Darwin. If you
bother to read the Origins, Darwin lists them at the beginning of his
thesis. What all those theories lacked was a mechanism which could be
used to form hypotheses, and make predictions which can be tested
against the evidence. Much of the research in the sciences of biology,
palaeontology and more recently genetics has been testing predictions
made by Darwin's theory and its subsequent modifications and
elaborations. It is noteworthy that in spite of 150 years of effort,
the basics of Darwin's theory are still sound.


Show me your math; show me your predictions; show me how your
observations match your predictions. Otherwise, stop going on about
your "science."


http://tinyurl.com/g2dps
http://tinyurl.com/fkrbb
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/10/5269
http://tinyurl.com/nc4hs

Try a search in google scholar. It gave me over 800,000 links.

So I guess that you will now withdraw your claim that the evolutionary
science are not real sciences, or demonstrate that each one of those
800,000 links is irrelevant to your assertion that the evolutionary
sciences do not make predictions, and do not use mathematics.

Well, that would be the act of someone with intellectual honesty, but I
guess that we need to make allowances for the fact that you're a
creationist.


RF


Jack

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AC fails to turn the non sequitur, "anti-darwin skepticism necessitates
    ... Stalin rejected genetics, but accepted subatomic physics. ... Please back up this claim by citing a single atheist who claims that skepticism about neoDarwinism requires the rejection of science. ... But if you want an analogy to the way physicists view general relativity, it wouldn't be rejection of evolution, but an idea that our current theories don't explain everything. ... darwinism is false based upon discordant facts is on much firmer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?
    ... Natural selection is virtually a certainty. ... only people who disagree are those who know nothing about science. ... NOT support the "Theory of Evolution", ... Mine's in physics. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... The reason why science is so often useful is precisely because it ... because when they make testable predictions, ... testable by reference to material evidence. ... Evolution can and has. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... The reason why science is so often useful is precisely because it ... because when they make testable predictions, ... testable by reference to material evidence. ... Evolution can and has. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)