Replies

First, I studied physics for several years at Hampshire College, taking classes at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst through the exchange of the Five College system.

The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested scientifically.

Part of the Scientific Method is to formulate a hypothesis that is CAPABLE of being tested as true or false — technically the null hypothesis is capable of being proven false.

The next step is to design an experiment capable of proving the hypothesis true or false (proving the null hypothesis false).

The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be up to the standard of being testable, and also demands that the experiment be WELL-designed... not just any experiment.

The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested by experimental results.

One of the most important steps when using a tool is to KNOW the LIMITS of your tool: When does it work and when does it not work.

What happened before the consciousness of humans began or history started being recorded is impossible for science to investigate.

Science can only investigate phenomenon that can be observed NOW, in the present, with repeated experiments now in the present.

Where science has been corrupted and has gone off the rails is that SPECULATION has replaced the Scientific Method.

So people get all excited and emotionally invested in what COULD be true, and then assume it is true.

Possibility is not proof.

But mere possibility is all that modern science has degenerated into.

Again:

Possibility is not proof.

>>First, I studied physics for several years at Hampshire College, taking classes at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst through the exchange of the Five College system.<<

I will take your word for it.

>>The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested scientifically.<<

It has been and is. It meets every single criteria for a Scientific Theory. If it is lacking, please specifically state where.

>>Part of the Scientific Method is to formulate a hypothesis that is CAPABLE of being tested as true or false — technically the null hypothesis is capable of being proven false.<<

That is the way Physics works. We need to create a planet to explain how the Earth was created?

>>The next step is to design an experiment capable of proving the hypothesis true or false (proving the null hypothesis false).<<

You ignore the NY flies specific example I cited. So, string theory and monopoles — there is no point in exploring based on physical data available?

>>The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be up to the standard of being testable, and also demands that the experiment be WELL-designed... not just any experiment.<<

Again, make an Earth or decry Geology. Likewise, feel free to explain how The Theory of Gravity must now be abandoned since we cannot create a gravitational fieeld.

>>The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested by experimental results.

One of the most important steps when using a tool is to KNOW the LIMITS of your tool: When does it work and when does it not work.

What happened before the consciousness of humans began or history started being recorded is impossible for science to investigate.<<

This science that looks at a femur 12 million years old should just toss it in the wastebasket.

>>Science can only investigate phenomenon that can be observed NOW, in the present, with repeated experiments now in the present.<<

That statement belies your opening statement.

>>Where science has been corrupted and has gone off the rails is that SPECULATION has replaced the Scientific Method.

So people get all excited and emotionally invested in what COULD be true, and then assume it is true.<<

You really don’t understand science.

>>Possibility is not proof.

But mere possibility is all that modern science has degenerated into.

Again:

Possibility is not proof.<<

Proof can certainly create a probable scenario. I would say billions of consistent data points and physical evidence is pretty good proof.

You didn’t pay attention in your “science” classes (assuming you paid attention). Your cute summary of the Scientific Method is misapplied in this case. And I see you didn’t even bother to walk through what a Scientific Theory is.