Why Evolution is science

Hi DivineBeginning, welcome to evcforum.We have organized the discussion into a variety of forums, and we really do like to keep the discussion focussed.This particular thread has a rather narrow scope. It is about the nature of science, and whether evolution matches the criteria for being science. See the opening post Message 1 for full details.This isn't a thread about radioactive dating. If you want to discuss that, such discussion would normally be in Dates and Dating. You can propose your own topic, if what you want to discuss does not fit in one of the open threads. If you want to discuss the laws of thermodynamics, that could perhaps be handled in Big Bang and Cosmology, where we often discuss physic topics. Similarly, we have forums for various other matters that are often debated between creationists and evolutionists.What we want to avoid, is taking a thread wildly off-topic (as you have been doing).

---

I'm so sorry about that. It won't happen again, as I am very new to this whole forum thing. I will keep tabs on what I am discussing. Thanks for the help and suggestions.

Commenting on the opening post, Message 1: Evolution doesn't really explain "how the world got to be the way it is today," since that would also include geology. Based upon descent with modification and natural selection, the theory of evolution provides an explanatory framework for the diversity of life observed in both the living and fossil records. Yes, good point. And it's interesting to note that one of the problems with Darwin's original theory was that it lacked a mechanism for passing individual characteristics on to descendants. In Darwin's own writings he speculated about such mechanisms, and he realized that proposed mechanisms like substances in the blood would experience dilution over time and so were not viable possibilities. It wasn't until the rediscovery of genes, after Darwin's death, that the mechanism behind heredity was revealed. This is another good point. It isn't one of the defining characteristics of science, but it is one that experience has shown to be generally true. As new theory replaces old theory we find that our understanding of the nature of the universe becomes more and more refined and nuanced. It is rare in science that a new theory changes everything, though it was certainly true of continental drift and plate tectonics. The example of changing estimates of the age of the earth is much more typical, where at first we thought it was some 6000 years old or so, then 20 millions years, then 100 million years, then a billion years, then several billion years, then around 4 billion years, then 4.5 years, then 4.56 billion years, and then you get into arguments about at what point do you call a molten mass of accumulating material a planet.My own arguments for why evolution is science run along similar lines. It is natural, it is falsifiable, it makes accurate predictions, and scientists working in the field of evolution follow the scientific method, which includes the necessity for replication. Enabling other scientists to replicate results requiring publishing those results, and this takes place through peer-reviewed articles in journals.I suppose the reason the question of "Why evolution is science" was raised is as a response to the assertion that evolution is religion. Politically, I happen to be an independent, but independence is not my religion. Scientifically I happen to believe in the scientific method, but the scientific method is not my religion. Religiously, I'm a Unitarian, and I don't know of anyone anywhere who thinks of science as their religion, or who thinks science is a religion. This is just a silly, knee-jerk response by creationists who when met with the charge that creationism is just thinly veiled religion respond with, "Oh, yeah? Well, evolution is religion, too!" There's really no basis for it.--Percy

Welcome to EvC.It takes a while to get used to forum debating and what things to avoid. That, for example, is an assertion (<--click). They need to be backed by evidence or else we won't make any progress in our discussion. I could just as easily assert that evolution has been duplicated in a labrotory environment. Our discussion would quickly deteriorate into 'uh-huh', 'nuh-uh', 'uh-huh', 'nuh-uh'. There's no point, we'd make no progress, and we'd learn nothing. It should be avoided. That is another bare assertion, that evolution can't be dublicated.There's a lot of threads on this site with evidence against your assertions. You should look around and educate yourself before diving in too deep here. People aren't going to cut you very much slack and your going to get pissed off and not come back. The evos can be very rude to new member who are uneducated in the subject and make bare assertions. You should read a lot more before you post a lot more. I have faith too. read my signature You shouldn't base your beliefs on that which is easier to believe.Truth can be stranger than fiction.Transubstantiation is difficult to believe in but that doesn't mean that I don't.Anyways, have you heard of Theistic Evolution? Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, you don't have to choose one or the other.Evolution, the process not neccessarily the theory, has most definitely and does occur. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist nor that he didn't have a hand in the emergence of our, human, existence.Like I said typed eariler. You should read a buch of threads here. A lot of the things you have typed, have been typed before and replied too. This site is honest and informative. I think if you read enough, you can learn that evolution is not bullshit and it doesn't challenge your beliefs (unless you're a Young Earth Creationist/Biblical Literalist).This message is off topic and there's no need for you to reply (or for an admin to put big red signs on it). I just thought I'd offer you some advise as I've seen your kind before.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:Please demonstrate your knowledge rather than claim it. The probability thread is your opportunity: the old improbable probability problem. This is OFF TOPIC on this thread, and further discussion should be addressed on the thread linked.Looks like you are one to come in and make a bunch of assertions before substantiating any. This will result in a LOT of people jumping all over your posts pointing out ALL the errors in them. Then you will feel overwhelmed and ganged-up on. I suggest you stick to one topic at a time.This topic has been covered on a number of threads already. If you want we can start a thread just for you to present your case. This is OFF TOPIC on this thread, and further discussion should be on a new thread. Do you want a new thread now? (just yes or no)I'm not talking about new species being found, I am talking about new species evolving directly out of other species. This has been observed. AiG concurs that it has been observed. Evolution has been observed.Denial of evidence is not faith.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : transfered arguments to linked threads for on-topic discussions

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Having proposed this topic and then dissappeared for a few days, I feel like I should say something.

quote:

---

I suppose the reason the question of "Why evolution is science" was raised is as a response to the assertion that evolution is religion.

---

This thread was raised for two reasons. First, perhaps the thread should have been called Why Creation is Not Science, since that was more the intent of the initial post. Second, everyone seems to have their own opinion of what makes science science, and I thought it would be nice to try to reach some kind of consensus on this issue. If you had to give a one or two-liner describing what makes an idea or theory scientific, what would that be?

quote:

---

And it's interesting to note that one of the problems with Darwin's original theory was that it lacked a mechanism for passing individual characteristics on to descendants.

---

Yes this interesting. I would actually not refers to Darwin's writings as the theory of evolution, and make a specific effort not to do so in the original post. Darwin made a series of convincing scientific observations that pointed to the idea that a mechanism should exist. Evoloution as it appears today is a full-fledged scientific theory because of the inclusion of a mechanism.Is this description lacking anything?

Science: The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement.
(The Collins English dictionary)It is obvious that science involves observation. But even more so, it deals with the physical. Science will never observe God, or spiritual things.For this reason religion is not science. Religion is solely a spiritual thing. Does this mean it is falsified since science is unable to test it? I do not believe so. This just points to the limitations of science.Faith: Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11)Ask yourselves this: How can someone be certain and how can someone be sure? EVIDENCE! Any Christian must have faith, but this faith cannot be blind. It must be based on evidence. List of evidence: The Bible, design, beauty in nature, concepts, equations/constants.Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.We are without excuse, evolution is a theory not based on scientific fact, but based on a philosophy to explain things without God.For evolution is not something we observe, the many examples given by evolutionists are examples of natural selection, not evolution (there is a difference between the two). The big bang is not observed presently, merely we observe evidence of expansion:
Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says” he who created the heavens and stretched them out...
Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,Think of all the Nobel prizes won by scientists because they observed equations... they just observed the equations that were already there. What about God? He created them. Or is it more scientific to believe the equations came about by chance? In that case lets give chance the Nobel prize!Surely it is more scientific to believe in a god. Since we observe design and its effect we should be to apply that to God's handiwork. How is it that we have lost our judgment to distinguish between chance and purpose-driven design?

Hello Confidence and welcome to EvC. I am a believer in God, and I respect--although do not worship-- the Bible.There is a clear line drawn between Faith/Belief and Science. In this forum, I am more interested in you defending your premise that evolution is but a philosophy using science ground rules---not faith ones.If you wish to discuss the Bible and Christianity, it is preferable that you do so in our Faith/Belief forums rather than in our science forums.Edited by AdminPhat, : adminphat

quote:

---

Evoloution as it appears today is a full-fledged scientific theory because of the inclusion of a mechanism.

​

Is this description lacking anything?

---

What is also needed to be a scientific theory is that the theory must successfully predict phenoma that is not predicted by one or more of the competitors (if there are any).For instance, evolution predicts the heirarchical classification of species (which was already known, of course, so this is more of a retrodiction -- however, there was no good reason known why this hierarchical structure should be observed prior to Darwin).Also, the mechanisms of heredity were unknown in Darwin's time. The theory of evolution predicts that whatever the mechanisms of heredity, the hereditary factors should be subject to change during or before transmission to the next generation. In other words, evolution predicts genetic mutations.-Another thing that is necessary is repeatability of the observations.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

---

Actually, this is a problem for literalists. It describes the earth as a flat disk and the skies as a tent stretched over it. This is consistent with the cosmologies of the peoples of the Middle East at the time this was written. According the local beliefs, the earth is a flat surface, and the sky is a solid dome that holds the waters of the sky in place; read the literal account of Noah's flood to see how this fits together.Taken in the context of the local beliefs, the writer clearly believes that the earth is a flat disk, and the creator made the sky by stretching a physical material over it. Interpreting this verse according to modern beliefs that the earth is a sphere and space-time is expanding is simply reading your own present knowledge into ancient texts that very clearly had a different meaning.To that end,

quote:

---

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says” he who created the heavens and stretched them out...

---

Is either metaphor, or more expression of the belief that the sky is a big, physical tent and the creator literally stretched this physical material when he made it all.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

The theory of evolution predicts that whatever the mechanisms of heredity, the hereditary factors should be subject to change during or before transmission to the next generation. In other words, evolution predicts genetic mutations.

---

I am a Creationists, I don't disagree with what you say, but creationism predicts genetic mutations as well. Here is how:After the fall into sin, God cursed the world. Hence, everything is in a degenerative state. Which is what we observe. So I can say the Bible predicted genetic mutations, decease, earthquakes, and the whole slew of 'bad' things.But evolution predicts mutations that gain information. For example, a human growing feathers instead of hairs. Now, if we had such examples, evolution would have a strong case, but I do not know of an example given by evolutionists that provide a mutation that somehow generates new information. And careful study must be made of such examples, for many of them are actually of natural selection of a mutation that destroyed a function which enables an organism to survive, but it still is a degenerative mutation since the organism lost something.Some examples given by evolutionsts are:
-Ancon sheep, (sheep with shorter legs). (mutation that destroyed information to build cartilage and bones in certain areas of the legs)
-Beetles losing their wings, (mutation that destroyed information to produce wings)
-eyeless fish,(again a loss of information)
-hox genes, (a misdirection of information --> producing two heads or growing a leg somewhere where it is not supposed to be).
-sickle cell decease, (again a loss of information that is beneficial in certain areas where malaria is a danger)Even though some of these mutations are beneficial and can be argued to say that this is how evolution works, it still is not the example required for a single cell to evolve to humans. On the other hand all these examples fit well within a creationist view point. The earth and creation is groaning because of the fall in to sin at the beginning due to God's curse.

---

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

Hello, Confidence, and welcome to EvC.

quote:

---

...creationism predicts genetic mutations as well.

---

I don't know that I agree with that. I don't think that creationism predicts anything at all about genetics; I don't think that creationism says that everything should be degenerating. Certainly, the creationists before Galileo believed, for example, that the stars and planets were made out of a perfect substance not subject to decay or degeneration. So the existence of some things that do not degenerate is perfectly compatible with creationism. I don't see why genes couldn't be one of them. It would be perfectly possible that genes were carried by a mechanism that did not ever change between generations. "Bad genes" are not necessary for illness; there are plenty of diseases that don't rely on genes.-

quote:

---

But evolution predicts mutations that gain information.

---

Actually, it doesn't. What evolution predicts is that some of these mutations will lead to individuals that are better able to survive and produce progeny.-

quote:

---

For example, a human growing feathers instead of hairs. Now, if we had such examples, evolution would have a strong case....

---

Actually, this is just the opposite. Feathers are rather complicated structures, and to see a human hand suddenly have feathers would contradict what we know about evolution.In fact, this is what I would expect to see if creationism is true. Remember I mentioned the nested hierarchical classification of species? If creationism were true, I wouldn't expect to see this; I would expect to see a random mix of characteristics that would defy the sort of Linnaean classification that we see.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Welcome to the fray Confidence (yellow for emPHAsis)Thus to complain that evolution is "a philosophy to explain things without God" does NOT mean that it is not science NOR that it is doing something WRONG compared to other sciences, or there is a logical contradiction on your part.Science - not just evolution - is necessarily agnostic. It is about studying the natural world and the natural processes that we can tease out by observation and theory and testing and more observation. And this of course also explains why so many Christians and people of other faiths have no problem working in the field of evolution. There are more Christians that have no problem with evolution than there are Christians that do: The problem would not appear to be evolution per se but some OTHER factor that differentiates one Christian from another. That definition fits evolution just as well as any other science.Evolution is the change in species over time: this is observed, it has happened, it is a fact that it has happened, both in the lab and in the wild world. It has been observed, it has been subject to experiment and repeated, it has been measured: it is science.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Great! lead me to some examples? Just to make sure you are talking about evolution, not natural selection?

Before you start moving the goal post, maybe you should first know what evolution is. Natural selection is part of evolution, here:Evolution:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote:

---

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection). and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination, and gene flow.

---

Welcome to EvC.

---

Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.