[freedumb2003]

>>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.

[Moseley]

We need to create a planet to explain how the Earth was created?

Basically, yes. But if WE created a planet, that would still not tell us how it happened originally. That would only tell us how WE created a planet.

A historical event -- the creation of life from non-life -- has nothing in common with a scientific theory.

A theory is timeless and happening NOW.

Science is not suited to investigating something that happened ONLY in the past -- and not in the present.

That includes Intelligent Design. I can prove that God exists. I can talk to Him. But I can no more prove that the Earth and life is here by Intelligent Design than anyone can prove life came from evolution.

A relationship between electricity and magnetism can be proven as a theory. That is happening NOW. We can test it.

But what part of the Scientific Method applies to something that ONLY happened in the past, and has never been repeated and is incapable of being repeated?

[Moseley]

So, string theory and monopoles — there is no point in exploring based on physical data available?

Gathering data is always useful. For every one who has the luxury of sitting back and trying to figure out how to explain what we observe, there are thousands of people who gather data.

Without the people who patiently measured the movements of the planets in the cold night and painstakingly recorded their observations, the theories of celestial mechanics could not have been developed.

But a search for truth -- as opposed to entertainment -- requires a humility that modern society has lost.

[Moseley]

>>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.

New York flies? This is the problem: How do you define evolution? The definition of evolution CHANGES when you ask tough questions to a supporter of evolution. How can there be proof of evolution, if evolution is not precisely defined? How can there be proof of something that is vague and ambiguous and ever-shifting?

The only useful meaning of "evolution" is that non-life spontaneously turned into life.

So do the flies in New York prove something? Well, that depends on what the QUESTION is. Whether the flies prove something depends on what it is you are proposing to prove.

Do flies in New York tell us that life spring from non-life? If "evolution" means that non-life turned into life then what proves that?

And yet we have never even seen a species turn into a different species.

Note that if there are 10 donuts and 10 croissants on the table and I eat all the donuts, that does not mean that the donuts turned into croissants. I now see only croissants, but not a single donut transformed itself into a croissant.