Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
qed
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 249 (343980)
08-27-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by mitchellmckain
08-15-2006 8:10 PM


Dissambiguation
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, LAWS, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (National Academy of Sciences)
"No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a "descriptive generalization about nature". So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth."
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time.
Scientific American: 15 answers to creationist nonsense
Creationism is a collection of untested hypothesies, not yet a theory. This is still science and every hypothesis was once untested however many creationist "scientists" do not adhere to scientific method.
My Personal Opinion: As soon as the first non-christian scientist stands up and says "hey, i reckon the earth is pretty young" or "i don't believe in god but it seems like life popped up from nowhere". It might be worth a look into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 8:10 PM mitchellmckain has not replied

  
qed
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 249 (343981)
08-27-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by inkorrekt
08-27-2006 2:48 AM


please explain
"Yes, you can turn this around. But, facts remain the same. Evolution has hijacked Science. REal Science was practised before Darwin. After Darwin, Science has never been Science."
What makes Darwin's method any different to Newton's. Explanation and ideally facts would be great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by inkorrekt, posted 08-27-2006 2:48 AM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 3:36 PM qed has not replied
 Message 200 by inkorrekt, posted 08-31-2006 9:28 PM qed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024