Skip to comments.Evolution debate persists because it's not science
Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
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...
(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...
I don’t get what the big push is about evolution. It’s at least as plausable that we evolved over millions of years and that life was conjured out of thin air and we were created from dust.
Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.
The Big Bang theory is metaphysical cosmology. Unfortuntely there is very little good philosophy in either the American or British educational system.
"I dont get what the big push is about evolution." 2 posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 2:00:00 AM by utherdoul
It's delayed adolescent sexual anxiety and maladjustment to conventional morality. The percentage of people who get most hysterical about pushing the atheistic version of Darwinist materialism is about the same as that of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder and those suffering from masurbation anxiety. The facts about this have been suppressed so as not to embarrass left-brained dorks at prestige universities who go in for compulsive obsessions in hard sciences. But it is sexual and masturbation anxiety which drives the emotional hysteria behind this movement to make kids spend hours upon hours studying graphs of imaginary prehistoric hominids and gargantuan ape men. Although it's unclear why this in particular relieves the anxiety.
It would require more research into what brought on the anxiety and when the obsessions, cathexis, and fixation on pictures of large ape men set in.
Yes, let me see if I can simplify this AMAZING revelation.
If there is debate, then it is not Science.
However, what is not debatable is Science.
Genesis is not debatable.
Genesis is Science.
I respectfully think not.
Ooops, forgot to put in link:
And how about astronomy? Objectively, it consists in the recording and interpretation of electromagnetic radiation impinging on the earth. How is it that these interpretations gain the status of FACT ?
When we start hearing rumors of Navy Seals being re-engineered to have gills and Army Rangers re-engineered to have binocular vision you will think otherwise.
One quibble with this, leaving aside Petrarch's metaphor from philology
and rhetoric. The "scientific method" didn't bring "man out of the Dark Ages."
And liberalism, scientism, and moral relativism will send man right back.
The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.
==And liberalism, scientism, and moral relativism will send man right back.
I got a good chuckle out of that one. And I would argue that Darwood’s unscientific theory of origins is a major contributor to all three.
GOD created the world (universe) in six days nuff said. Call me a religious fanatic if you want. This I read in His holy word, this I believe. All else is anathema.
“The Big Bang theory is metaphysical cosmology.”
As is the idea of parallel universes.
Much of geology couldnt be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they cant be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.
But those same geological processes can be observed in artificial, experimental conditions, in which they have been greatly speeded up. Geology is a science because it receives confirmation from physics and chemistry.
The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.
I think we might say this:
In Darwin’s day, evolution was (to quote Karl Popper) a “metaphysical research programme”; i.e., a way of looking at the world that could guide the sort of research one did, and the sort of questions one asked.
Since the age of biochemistry and molecular biology, however, Darwinian evolution can be considered, and should be considered, A FAILED SCIENCE, not a “non-science.” It is perfectly legitimate to ask “Can random mutation plus natural selection either cause life to come into existence from non-living matter; and can it cause one species to change into another?”
It’s pretty clear from biochemistry and molecular biology that the answer is no.
This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “change over time”; everyone knows (and always knew) that change over time existed. It means that CHANCE cannot explain such change.
Sadistic personalities tend to go in for the “survival of the fittest” narrative with the most enthusiasm. It should prove interesting when Sharia comes to Europe and Londonistan how literally they are enthused by it.
I got a good chuckle out of that one. And I would argue that Reverend Darwoods unscientific theory of origins is a major contributor to all three. [corrected]All right GGG, every time you reach for the capital D key mid sentence, you need to ask your self, Am I addressing Reverend Darwood by his earned title?