Posted on 03/27/2009 6:23:20 AM PDT by laotzu
Yes, it is true that Einsteins theory of relativity has not yet been proven.
But a great many of his other theories have.
What to do with evolution then? Should all debate be stopped? Should this theory be accepted as proven?
It is obvious you have no knowledge of or respect for the methodology of science
Not true, but; a great way to shut down debate. Which, after all, is the topic of this thread.
A simple 'Google' of "Einstein theory proven" will provide several hundred-thousand hits; many from academia's finest.
But, beware. In doing so, you will have proven many of the theories behind processors and computing.
The resistance is to presenting ID and creationism as scientific theories, not to discussing issues with evolutionary theory. Darwin himself devoted the last chapter of his book to problems with his theory so it’s pretty hard to claim that there has been a policy of “no dissent allowed.”
I’ve been around a long time and I sure haven’t experienced it.
I think the confusion here is in the way people understand the word proven. Scientists will use the word without meaning to imply that the proven theory is incapable of being unproven.
This is especially true in biology.
How convenient for them.
A convenience shared by politicians, car salesman, lawyers, and small children.
Such a convenience is supposed to be antithetical to science.
prove: verb (used with object)
to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.
The resistance is to discussing the weaknesses of evolution.
The desired mandate is to quash any dissent.
I understand your frustration, but imagine the alternative: a world where once convinced, people are unwilling to reconsider what they have concluded true.
That’s scarier to me.
I prefer to keep in mind that “evidence and argument” are produced by humans, and that even the “best and brightest” among us are fallible.
If you do, I have to say my experience is completely different.
Actually, I think that you and I may be in agreement.
My only frustration here is the assertion that no theory is proven.
Isn't proving theories how most scientists hope to spend the bulk of their time?
I take it from your comment "Scientists will use the word without meaning to imply that the proven theory is incapable of being unproven"; that scientists are quite at home with proving & proven theories.
I must leave for a bit, but look forward to continuing our discussion.
The basis of “evolutionists” entire theory is natural selection of genetic variation, not how life came about in the first place.
Maybe they should quit promoting that single cell becomes a human being stuff if that is true. You can’t have it both ways. This is my point, evoulutionists need to get out of the metaphysics department and take back their theory from the atheists and secular humanists who have hijacked it to do away with God and religion. Debating over the origin of life is part of the package until they do that, whether they like it or not.
Most Scientists in the USA are people of faith. Most Christian faiths have no problem with the theory of evolution.
Elucidation of the mechanisms whereby living organisms change no more removes God as the creator of life and all living things than elucidation of the mechanisms of planetary and stellar formation removes God as the creator of the heavens and the Earth.
I am sorry you are so defensive about this topic, it is not my desire to convert anyone to anything. I personally think every person will make up their own mind. This debate has been ongoing for a decade on the internet and shows no signs of waning. If you look back in the archives of this site, you will see it has been beat to death by every faction that you mentioned. Have a good day.
I am “reality based” on this topic; not defensive.
When you make claims that are unsubstantiated in an area where I possess knowledge (Biology being my area of expertise); I will correct you.
I am sorry you are defensive about being corrected.
I tell Global Warming fools that Nature obviously wanted humans to evolve and gave humans the specific tools to alter their environment and that if Global Warming exists by Human’s own hands then it is Nature’s fault for evolving Humans in the First place.
(Similar to the circular logic that globull warming folks believe in)
Since Goofball Warming Fools claim their believe in evolution this gets some of them blank stares as they try to contemplate the advanced concept of logical reasoning. Some of them do retort back that Nature made a mistake when evolving us, to them I say right back “How much Hubris has man to question Nature in it’s decision to evolve humans in the first place?” This usually shuts them up.
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.