No Witnesses

"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of EducationAre witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.

I completely agree- I was looking more for creationists to back up the Alabama Board. You can read the quote in context at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/textbook.html

Interestingly, that label exists till today- Creationism in the Alabama standards? | National Center for Science Education.You're still correct that the referenced version of the disclaimer is outdated and almost everyone already knows better- my objective is to find the few people the answer has not reached (there are always a handful) for a paper because the prompt itself references this label from late 1995. This argument should still be in use by the uninformed (searching up something like "no one there to see evolution").

Hm, I still figure the problem of a lack of witnesses has to do with a misconception of observations and thus evolution not following the scientific method (the opposition probably believes observation is limited to direct witnessing).I see where you're going. Plants are hermaphroditic, so as soon as reproductive isolation occurs in one (without disabling fertility) it can begin its own population. Under 5.0 a few examples are listed, beginning with Hugo de Vries: Observed Instances of SpeciationAt this point I doubt I'll find anyone on this forum who still agrees with the label's statement.Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.

That's certainly a good point. We can't expect everyone to know the scientific definitions of the terms we use (the classic example being "theory"). We certainly have witnessed macroevolution as modern science defines. It's too bad that some creationists demand evidence that is impossible or extremely difficult to come by. The original point I was making in this thread was that scientists have made observations but some creationists limit the definition of "observation" to bearing eyewitness. It's certainly mind-boggling when they go on to claim that evolution is therefore not science.