Evolution debate persists because it's not science

The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

[GodGunsGuts]

Opinion

Monday, Feb. 23, 2009

Evolution debate persists because it's not science

By Raymond H. Kocot

...

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

[xzins]

Humans don’t grasp things?

BTW, a scotch pot cleaning pad has friction strips, too. Some designer someplace...in some soap lab...noticed an obvious idea.

[metmom]

Is that your point metmom?

No, but don't let that get in the way of your building a strawman because you can't debate the real issues.

[ColdWater]

The article says nothing of the sort.

It is not an article. It is an opinion piece.

[DoctorMichael]

Yeah, the evos claiming to be conservatives, all the while proceeding with their anti-God agenda by pushing God out of public life and giving their approval to groups like the NEA and ACLU in their anti-Christian efforts, IS a real stain on conservatism.

Grand-sweeping-generalization Placemarker.

(See my ***Tagline***)

[RC2]

150 years? Let it alone. Not worth wasting the time or money on this. Allow those....if you really have to allow them.....to believe whatever they want to believe.

[metmom]

It's inherently paradoxical for a true scientist to be a creationist. Science *necessitates* materialism. Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

So much for the the Bible and evolution being compatible fairy tale that the evos like to foist off an everyone.

[metmom]

Yes, your tagline proves my point.

Commenting on others like that is “Another-stain-on-Conservatism”.

[Moonman62]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science.

The non-surprising answer is that there are certain religious people who want to keep people ignorant, and deny the truth of God's creation.

[Westbrook]

> Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

Apparently, Louis Pasteur didn’t get the memo.

Neither did Isaac Newton, but he predated Darwin.

[tacticalogic]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

That's looks like a double-edged sword that's going to cut down ID, right along with "macroevolution".

[Caramelgal]

No, but don't let that get in the way of your building a strawman because you can't debate the real issues.

If you mean by the “real” issues you mean; the erosion of our Constitution, nationalization of private business, wealth confiscation, Socialism?

I’m willing to debate the “real” issues. Why aren’t you?

Arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just don’t seem all that important to me right now in the bigger scheme of things.



“If I only had a brain” said the Scarecrow.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“The “scientific method” didn’t bring “man out of the Dark Ages.”
Charlemagne did.”

Gee, I thought the Crusades started the process!

[Westbrook]

> Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)

Your tagline lends support to my observation that evolutionists have little else to counter their opponents than ad hominem.

Explain to all of us ignorant amplifying the stupid how a dinosaur transitions to a bird, given the unsurvivability of any intermediate species, as well as the lack of any evidence thereof in the fossil record, except, of course, for the occasional hoax.

No evidence whatsoever can be found in the fossil record of transitions from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, from a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered heart, from solid bones to hollow bones, and myriad other differences between amphibians and birds.

In order to adapt to this, Evolutionism had to evolve into “Hopeful Monsters”. Problem is, the Hopeful Monster would have to find another Hopeful Monster of the opposite gender that mutated at the same generation in the same place. A statistical joy.

You are free to believe this nonsense, couch it in scientific terminology, promote it, hype it, revel in it, evangelize it. But you can do so without my money.

Evolutionism should be relegated to the discussion of comparative religions, or, at best, in a discussion of theories of origin outside of the science classroom.

Theories of origins are not scientific, because the processes cannot be observed, nor can they be reproduced. You cannot prove randomness by design, as one obviates the other.

[ColdWater]

Yeah, the evos claiming to be conservatives, all the while proceeding with their anti-God agenda by pushing God out of public life and giving their approval to groups like the NEA and ACLU in their anti-Christian efforts, IS a real stain on conservatism.

Interesting rant since I have not seen any 'evos' here trying to push God out of the public life nor any supporting the NEA and ACLU. OTOH, it has been posted by you that you want to take evolution out of the public schools. Who has what to fear from whom?

[DallasMike]

Until someone can be totally positive, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that science is true, correct, fact, the last word, there's no way that it can be used to be the standard by which everything is measured.

The thinking that science is *right* by default, and Scripture is *wrong* by default when the two are at odds, has no basis at all, nor does it have any precedence that supports it. It's merely a preference based on one philosophical outlook.

You are correct that science sometimes contradicts itself, though not as much as you seem to believe. Also, new discoveries are made that refine -- sometimes even turn over -- older theories. For example, the theory of relativity did not toss out Newtonian physics, but refined it.

Did you know that there are apparent contradictions in the Bible, too? For example, compare the geneologies in Matthew 1:6-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. I believe that the Bible is literally true, and I know several possible ways of reconciling the contradiction. How would you explain the contradiction?

Much scientific knowledge is known beyond a reasonable doubt. For example: the age of the universe. Yes, scientists may disagree whether it is 13.7 or 14.5 billion years old, but no one believes that it is 6,000 years old. The evidence is completely, 100% against it. A 14 billion-year old universe does not contradict the Bible. To understand that, one has to understand the various meanings that Hebrew words can have.

God's general revelation through his creation cannot contradict God's revealed word to us through his Bible. All truth is God's truth.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Remember how Christians fought against Galileo's discoveries? Christians of the day used the Bible to prove that the sun revolved around the earth. Let's hope that the nonsense about a 6,000-year old earth dies the same death, albeit much more quickly.

[editor-surveyor]

Removing the foundation from Neo-Atheism.

Is your fire suit deployed?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Over by then. Charlemagne beat them to it.

Without digressing on Petrarch's metaphor in philology and rhetoric on "dark ages" and related controversies, it's plausible only as the short period after the fall of the Roman Empire.

The development of scientific method is a very long, drawn-out process from Roger Bacon's experiments through the 17th century. The additional problem is that the triumph of scientism and moral relativism in the present day coincides with the Islamicization of Europe and the reappearance of nose rings and butt tattoos on women.

[GodGunsGuts]

You should like DallasMike, he will lick Evo boots for a pat on the head. He claims to be a scientist. But like you, he tends to make wild claims not supported by the evidence, confuses basic concepts that even high school earth science students know, will ridicule and disavow fellow Christians to be accepted by the Temple of Darwin, and is not above lying in his endless quest to gain the approval of God-hating atheists and materialists. If you have any self-respect at all, I would imagine you hate lukewarm sellouts no matter which side of the debate they happen to call their own. So I thought I’d present you with a few links to show DallasMike in action:

FYI re: DallasMike

This is the method DallasMike chose to enter the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#85

Here is where I correct DallasMike’s slander:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#97

Here is where DallasMike confuses inflation with expansion, saying that inflation has been “observed” since 1929! And then uses a link that actually states just the opposite to call the creationist author of the original article a “liar.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229

Here is where I point out that his own link says just the opposite, namely that inflation is not observed, and was postulated to fix problems with the Big Bang:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#237

But DallasMike keeps posting the same balderdash confusing inflation with expansion. I finally ask Mr. “Scientist” if he knows the difference between inflation and expansion here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#245

...and here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#246

And then DallasMike, the great Christian and “scientist” has the audacity to pretend he knew the difference all along:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=251#257

And then after fraudulantly trying to claim that he knew the difference all along, he repeats the same claim (which he now knows is a lie) all over again further down the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?page=290#290

This isn’t about whether DallasMike is an OEC or a YEC. If DallasMike were on my side of the debate and I caught him slandering and lying, I would call him on it in a second. If he was a scientist under my employ, I would fire him even faster.

[editor-surveyor]

"Humans have them because?"

All physical function requires friction. It is irreplaceable in the physical universe.

[ColdWater]

This isn’t about whether DallasMike is an OEC or a YEC. If DallasMike were on my side of the debate and I caught him slandering and lying, I would call him on it in a second.

I have NEVER seen you call on someone on your side for slandering or lying!