Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I guess it's his turn in the barrel. He does seem to enjoy it, though.
Basically that is correct. The same goes for those cases where molecules behave with consistency, and the periodic table of elements remains consistent, and the law of gravity behaves with a constancy allowing for the sustenance of life, etc. God not only created all things, visible and invisible, but He also sustains them to this very moment. How He does so is a matter for science to explore, and it has done so for several millennia.
What do you have that better explains the organization and consistency of matter? Whatever it is does not constitute science, but a personal belief, or philosophy, on your part.
Most people in any technical field are not theorists. It is possible to manipulate lab equipment that someone eles designed, based on someone else's theories, without "believing" the theory, but no biologist is going to contribute to theory without accepting evolution. There are, of course, countless variations on the mechanism of evolution, and "survival of the fittest" is just a cartoon version of natural selection, but the large thoughts are not in play.
Troll? Or lunatic? I report, you decide.
You might be a good candidate for the Darwin Central diplomatic corps.
It's the fact that there is a history that matters. Also, one can use the history as an indicator of the future even if not a predictor.
"Eyewitness testimony" is one of the main dogmas of the creationists, sometimes referred to as the "Johnny Cochran Theory" of biology.
But each snowflake has a different isotopic composition.
The theory of evolution is in a nutshell the theory that the variation of allele frequencies in the genomes of organisms varies with time, and that these variations can give rise to new species of organisms. This theory is most certainly testable, especially with modern DNA sequencing technology. We can actually look at organisms' genomes and determine which alleles are present. We can therefore monitor the allele frequencies in a given organism's genome over time and test to see if these frequencies do indeed change with time (they do). We can also look at cases where there are two similar organisms that are members of distinct species. Evolutionary theory would predict that these two organisms should have VERY similar genomes (indeed, they do.) We can and have also produced new species of organisms in lab experiments by the very process of selecting for the appropriate variants of the parent species, thus producing a change in allele frequencies which leads to the new species. Therefore, the theory of evolution is indeed testable, and furthermore stands up well to these tests I have described and many more as well. There are potential observations that could falsify evolution. (Precambrian rabbits, non-DNA based organisms, etc.) What potential observations could possibly falsify ID?
What in the world makes you think 'direct' observation is needed before a field of study can be considered science?
I may know more about it than you do because I've had to debunk it a few times. However your acknowledged lack of knowledge about astrology reinforces the inappropriateness of your comparison. If you know nothing about what you are comparing, then your comparison is invalid.
Come on. I would presume you know enough about the two to know you are talking about apples and oranges.
If you DON'T know, then perhaps you should learn something about them.
What is observed in atomic theory, which by the way is part of quantum theory, is the effect of the structure of the atom. There is no direct observation made.
"As such I do consider it to be science. Atomic theory, like the discipline of biology, is uncovering the grand design God placed into His creation and sustains to this very moment. In case you haven't noticed, 4.5 billion years is water over the dam."
Glad you acknowledge the age of the Earth.
"The farthest back written records of history go - our only hope for eyewitness testimony - is several millenia. "
'Eyewitness testimony' as recorded millenia after the putative fact. 'Eyewitness testimony' that can be and has been shown inaccurate. 'Eyewitness testimony', the origin of which has indeterminate credibility.
Direct observation is simply a way of adding veracity to scientific method and expression. What in the world makes you think ID is less scientific than any other theory if direct observation is left out of the equation? I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation. Evolutonism does not enjoy as much.
You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.
We should reject evolution based on this? Eugenics has been around a lot longer than Darwinism has been.
Undoubtedly, I agree that knowledge of history can be useful for present and future understanding and direction, HOWEVER, I fail to see how evolution is at all "knowable" since the "mechanism of change" is as great and multifaceted as all of existence itself.
Philosophically it seems that we can only know/understand evolution when we are able to know/understand the universe. Why not just eliminate the redundant evolution powder keg and set about understanding the existing cosmos - that alone should take an eternity - and I think would yield greater benefits to mankind.
Inasmuch as atomic theory makes use of materials and phenomena presently at hand it is indeed making use of direct observation.
Eyewitness testimony is by no means infallible, but it sure beats none at all. A 4.5 billion year old earth does not enjoy as much, and as such it not a factor in science, but a factor in a philosophy certain folks choose to follow.
Too bad. So sad. Take your philosphy down the hall and preach it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.