Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Because it makes the loudest noise.
Science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
Question: How do they empirically test macro-evolution (esp. abiogensis->man, but also dinosaur->bird, land mammal->sea mammal, etc.)
Answer: They can't; is it truly science, then?
And that limitation is fine by me.
Almost every week a new song and dance. Pitiful.
> How do they empirically test macro-evolution
By looking at the fossil record, for one. Does the evidence suggest, say, that repitles evolved over several important but individually each useful steps into birds? You bet.
"Darwinian evolution is totally unproven in every sense and case."
Wow. A bit of overbreadth. I believe even die-hard creationist accept what they call "micro-evolution."
For example, no one disputes that Shetland ponies evolved from regular horses after a ship wreck left them stranded. The relative scarcity of food made smaller size an advantage (they were more "fit"), so the smaller horses lived to have babies. The trait was reinforced over a couple of hundred years until what-we-now-call the Shetland pony was created.
Other examples abound, of course, that's just the one I recall.
That's a good one! I needed a good chuckle...oh wait...you're serious, aren't you?
Rather than refute you, I will just ask you to read and ponder Junior's tag-line.
What type of life is there on Earth. How are they classified. Why are they classified as such. What are their components and structure. etc...
The author is clearly aware that many people will not like evolution and will want to dismiss it.
That is why he makes the case that it is the consensus of scientists that matters.
The consensus of scientists is that much of evolution is a fact.
Pseudoscience seldom crept in to as high a level in any other natural sciences discipline. Astrology or orgone field never entered in to legitimate institutions of science in astonomy or biology in the manner the above mentioned did in evolutionary biology.
Or bad science, peppered moths and the like.
The slipshod nature of so much evolutionay teaching, and use of it to promote sociopolitical belief or agenda, has contributed to a widespread skepticism of the field.
Answer: Theories of evolution make, or imply, certain predictions (or post-dictions, as the case may be) about what one would expect to have happened. Analysis of the fossil evidence, or of the genetic relationships of existing creatures, can than be used to confirm or disprove those predictions. Doing science does not always require a laboratory experiment. For example, evolutionary theory suggested the concept of common descent. Subsequently DNA analysis of modern creatures has shown to be consistent with that common descent, a fact unknown when those predictions were made. This does not prove those theories, but it does support them.
Very good article. Thanks for the post.
That's natural selection.
So science, which always applauds a healthy skepticism in combination with the scientific method, is to be taught unskeptically as essentially a materialist religion.
Tell me Derbyshire, which of the two theories, phyletic evolution (advanced by Dawkins), or punctuated evolution (advanced by Stephen Jay Gould), is "settled", "consensus" science? They cannot both be true.
Excellent point.
Not really. This is stated alot but it isn;t so.
Medelian inheritance is much more important.
In terms of the foundation it is Mendelian inheritance and chemistry.
If there was some edict or a parrallel universe where some sort of ID theory was universally held, the same results of the structure of DNA, structure of proteins, genome sequences, similarities and relationships between genes and genomes of species would all the be the same and the same work would be done.
Darwinism provides a framework to discuss and analyze and put things in perspective. It is not the foundation though.
Genetics is required for a biology degree. A class on evolution is not, for example.
|
That consensus includes ID proponents like Behe, Dembski, and Denton. They accept the fact of evolution pretty much as it is taught in schools.
Where they differ is in the mechanism of variation, where they posit some non-ramdom mechanism.
This small detail is generally overlooked on these threads.
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.