Skip to comments.Evolution Isn't Science
Posted on 11/29/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by kathsua
The new standard for teaching science in public schools should prohibit teaching religious beliefs like evolution as if they were the equivalent of scientific theories.
Science should be defined as using experimentation and observation to discover information about physical reality. Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.
Contrary to a popular myth pushed by those who want to make science a substitute for religion, science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe.
The idea that the universe came out of a black hole (the "Big Bang" theory) became popular in the 20th century, but it is hardly a new explanation. An account attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather) first described an event in which "all of creation" came out of an invisible object with a fiery light inside (i.e., a black hole) thousands of years ago. Many cultures use the word "egg" to describe the object the universe came out of.
The idea of one species changing to another, particularly the idea of humans being related to apes, was around long before Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species." Darwin was reluctant to say we are a monkey's grandchildren, so he just suggested that we are distant cousins. The ancient Tibetan religion had no such inhibitions and claims that we are descended from monkeys.
Evolutionists ignore the fact that humans use gradual changes to develop complex equipment. Development of biological life through gradual changes implies that an Intelligence developed life.
Evolution makes some sense in very tight circumstances. Evolution does not describe how life exists or started. All of our observations show that life comes only from life. In other words all the chemicals on earth will never ever spring to life from dead material. The Big Bang ignited the whole universe a million degrees and I would think that would pretty much sterilize any material that thought about springing into life right there. With a sterile universe where can life come from except . . GOD?
At least get the book's title right:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (London: Murray, 1859)
The reality about evolution is that the grand idea of randomly thumping together life from raw matter is both abstract and absurd in comparison to what you do in both organic and physical chemistry. When it comes to assembling complex organic compounds from raw materials, you do not sit around and expect it to happen by accident. In fact, the probability is so minute that a complex organic compound will form without you guiding the reacion is... well, let’s just say it would be a miracle for you to sit around and expect it to happen. It’s like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and expecting the chimp to write some magnificent script for the next blockbuster film... Either way, the idea of life randomly coming into being from raw elements by accident is something we, as of yet, cannot experimentally replicate. And one of the real important, defining aspect of science is the experimental aspect, producing results from a controlled test.
The important key to evolution is to understand that it is limited in terms of what it does offer, and understanding what it gives in practicality, as opposed to the pseudoscience some people like to use.
“It’s one reason I think science is overrated.”
“Hard” science is fine - it can be verified and repeated via experimentation. Evolution is definitely not hard science - it is simply speculation.
Evolution is simply speculation. That’s good.
The crackpot fauna is really thick. Evolution gone horribly wrong.
“Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.”
So this is never true? Or is it sometimes true and sometimes not?
Can long half-life radioisotopes that exhibit billions of years worth of decay, based on experimentation and observations about their physical reality be assumed to actually be billions of years old?
It's up to those making a claim to substantiate it.
It’s encouraging to see how retarded my children’s competition is.
Yep, math and science is useless stuff. Keep attending that bible school!
There is the good science, which is known as natural selection, and that’s a process we work with to model and try dealing with antibiotic resistance in germs, as well as pesticide resistance in pests. Microbes evolve, and this is easily observable, especially when one generation for a microbe is very short compared to the life of a human being, you can watch their lifespan over the course of days, and for a lot of microbes, if they’re not limited by resources, a generation can be minutes. However, regarding the origin of life, even evolution is a stretch to describe it, because experimentally, we haven’t proven capable of making life from non-living matter, we always need living organisms to make other living organisms.
Every experiment would have to be constantly re-run over and over again to be certain that all of the laws we claim still apply today, right now.
It's even worse though, because pretty much every experiment that measures the speed of light takes a finite amount of time - however miniscule - to complete. When the photon hits the photodetector at time t2, how can we be certain that it started out at time t1 which was in the past. So how can we even measure the speed of time unless we depend on mere data points from the past?
Science is based on the scientific method and evolution does not rely on science as such.
“Can long half-life radioisotopes that exhibit billions of years worth of decay, based on experimentation and observations about their physical reality be assumed to actually be billions of years old?”
The assumption is based on the radioisotopes becoming settled when the rock solidified, and assuming that there was a specific kind of composition that existed in the molten magma when the rock cooled.
Furthermore, the half-life is a projection, based on an exponential evaluation over a smaller time interval. Logarithms. Either way, the creation of the Earth is a good explanation, because only in science fiction, namely Titan A.E., could we figure out how to experimentally create the Whole Planet Earth and all life on it.
I never knew that sciences and theories are mutually exclusive. Thanks for clearing that up.
Adaptation not = evolution
Uranium decays through a series of transuranic elements on it's way to becoming lead. These transurnaics have varying half-lives and thus accumulate in the sample in predictable proportions according to the age of the sample. It is reasonable to believe that a specific sample may have formed with exactly the proportions of those elements required to present a false appearance of age. It is insanity to believe they all did.
That is the scientific method.
Theory: Heavy objects fall faster than light objects. That was given truth for many, many years.
Test: Drop cannonballs off a tower.
Result: They hit at the same time.
So what was the daytime high temperature in Dallas on April 5, 2011?
Oh you're going to go through the archives of a Dallas newspaper to find it? But that's not the scientific method. There's no measurement involved. That just involves looking at past information and making some theoretic claims based on historical data.
I guess we'll never know that the daytime high temperature in Dallas was on April 5, 2011.
I keep an open mind on everything. And I believe people can and should believe whatever they want to believe. As long as I am allowed to do the same.
Never said that. Thanks for showing your lack of analytic capacity.
It has been an theory used, as an excuse, to kill other human beings for years.
My FIL, of all people, fought in Britain in WW2 against the Nazis. We were having a drink at the pub and some conversation. He thought that the disabled needed to be euthanized at birth. My mouth almost flew open. I said to him....”Hitler thought the same thing.” He clammed up.
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
The calculations engineers make to deterime if a building will stand up, based on measured properties of the materials is no less a "projection". Are you proposing we declare that not to be a valid application of scientific principles?
As another poster said, evolution is just speculation -- and then we find out that the speculation is certainly wrong, so they make adjustments and speculate in a different way -- until they find out that that was wrong too.
I cannot imagine any circumstance that would make these guys say "You know, maybe this evolution thing really is crap" -- they have too much invested in the theory, so they will keep admitting that it is wrong, that the new evidence invalidates part of the old thinking, but they will hold on to the core of the speculation. No matter what.
Evolution isn't science. It's a religion.
You said that.
Yep, I learned that in 8th grade. Sheesh.
I said evolution is not based on the scientific method. It is just a theory. It is not based on repeatable experiments and direct observation.
It is reasonable to believe that a specific sample may have formed with exactly the proportions of those elements required to present a false appearance of age. It is insanity to believe they all did.
I don’t doubt the validity of radioactive dating. I was more or less trying to explain where the explanation came from, or how it is derived. There was a part one to my statement in comment #17.
So a theory cannot be science.
I find it good to study the Universe that God gave us, to come closer to understand it.
I certainly don't try to limit God's methods with pre-conceived ideas.
You state that as an absolute.
Are you proposing we declare that not to be a valid application of scientific principles?
No. But what I more or less am stating is that we don’t have to live through the half-life of a radioactive substance, which can, in most cases easily decay only a minute fraction in a person’s lifetime. We can calculate it based on how much, even if small of a percentage, and logarithmically figure it out from a defined time interval. And yes, we can calculate materials’ without neccessarily having to physically do it the hard way (i.e. have to test it’s strength for every possible proportion. We can calculate it with accuracy.
“I never knew that sciences and theories are mutually exclusive”
I think this article is idiotic, but to be fair what they’re saying is the theory of evolution is not scientific because you can’t run an experiment to falsify or confirm it. Little known to them, apparently, is that scientists agree. Big Picture Evolution is really more a story than a theory.
The scientific part of evolutionary biology is natural and sexual selection. We only use the sweeping saga of life from primordial ooze to human civilization to give us an informally organized view of the whole pattern of which the specific selection from generation to generation is the scientific part. Sorta like how astronomers study the sweeping life of the cosmos, for instance, to guide their understanding of the science while their specific experiments are the real deal. You can’t verify the Big Bang theory experimentally, though you can strengthen trust in it. It’s there to help you understand what your experiments and observations mean.
I won’t argue with that.
Well then you’re in for a treat. Here’s more math and science than you can shake a stick at.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
And it is the typical site for those home schooled children attending Bible School [oh the horrors!]
PS Your best children’s best competition will be the home schoolers
“We spent thousands of years wrong about chemistry, physics, medicine, etc... I don’t suppose we’ll get exactly how God did what He did with the Universe until the very end.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I think that after we’ve been finished with our judgements, and live with God in the heavens, we can learn more, and learn the whole story. I figure there’s a reason why we don’t know everything; we probably just aren’t ready for it until we can master the priotity stuff: i.e. repent and accept God.
“I find it good to study the Universe that God gave us, to come closer to understand it.”
There’s plenty to benefit from a better understanding of the universe, new technology, especially.
“I certainly don’t try to limit God’s methods with pre-conceived ideas.”
Important as well, because we really only limit ourselves with our own pre-conceived ideas.
You’re a scientist?
This article is attacking a strong man. No one who matters thinks Big Picture Evolution is scientific in the same manner as that which can be empirically tested. The scientific part of evolutionary biology is natural and sexual selection; the rest is there to give people an overview to better understand specifics.
If you wanna go after charlatanism posing as science, attack string theory. It, too, cannot be empirically tested. Instead of treating it as mathematical games, for whatever ungodly reason most physicists take it seriously.
Never overlook the simple joy of understanding a small piece of the wonderful Universe that He created for us.
Sometimes I just stare at the stars to stand in awe of Creation.
But yeah, the e-books and stuff are cool, too.
I can't tell if you are trying to be clever or obtuse, but either way, your comment has nothing to do with the topic of the scientific method and a theory (evolution) that hasn't been scrutinized by the scientific method.
The process of measuring a temperature has been subjected to science. At points in time it is recorded based on this foundational rigor. An authority records. It can be cross referenced across other sources. I have no idea how this is related to the theory of evolution.
Because string theorists might just maybe be right, and they don't insist on 17 mile long, multi-billion dollar circular tunnels in the ground.
Pad, pencil, laptop, living expenses... Pretty cheap science.
Keeps 'em off the street.
What is the definition of “evolution” you’re railing against as unscientific? Maybe a better question is what do you think evolutionary biologists spend all day doing? Patting eachother on the back for figuring out the bug story? No, they study and test lowercase “e” evolution, which is the truly scientific evolution, and is based specifically on the mechanism of passing or not passing variable traits from generation to generation.
Where did he say that?
Yep, math and science is useless stuff. Keep attending that bible school!
Sad, isn't it? Sad that conservatism has been co-opted by a small but vocal faction that is utterly hostile to anything resembling science.
Oh well... Their children will one day be working for your children (as well as mine). I'll have to teach my kids to go easy around their delicate sensibilities.
It has also been used as an excuse for freedom, as one of its earliest champions and coiner of the phrase “survival of the fittest,” Herbert Spencer, was a libertarian. It has been used more by statists, though, as three of the four types of “social Darwinists” were eugenicists, bellicose nationalists, and progressives (the fourth being lassez-faireists), obviously with overlap between categories.
Science can never do justice to historical perspectives b/c there is no experiment which would allow even indirect observation of millions and billions of years of elapsed time.
Also if you study Einstein, Schrodinger, even Russell Humphreys a little closer you may realize the with gravitational time dilation 6,000 years can appear to be billions of years maybe even 13.7~15.7 when you take the big bang perspective in conjunction with shells of time. If everything was moving faster then...
Day 1 ~ 7 to 8 billion years apparent elapsed time
Day 2 ~ 3.4 to 4 billion
Day 3 ~ 1.75 to 2 billion
Day 4 ~ .875 to 1 billion
Day 5 ~ .4375 to .5 billion
Day 6 ~ .2188 to .25 billion
So one week at creation could make the elapsed time of an initial expansion appear to be longer for both a stellar and a nuclear perspective. Just some food for thought b/c
science also needs to do a good job of explaining contradictory data rather than sweeping it under a rug and pretending it doesn’t exist.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
Catholics might be right, too, but no one calls Catholicism scientific.
As for particle physicists’ boondoggles, if they nit dominate string theorists at least comprise a sizeable faction in every physics department of every university everywhere in the world. That adds up.
Catholics might be right, too, but no one calls Catholicism scientific.
As for particle physicists’ boondoggles, if they don’t dominate, string theorists at least comprise a sizeable faction in every physics department of every university everywhere in the world. That adds up.