Evolution is not science

Hi Malangyar,First let's note that you're saying two different things. First you say: It isn't true that scientific theories only become accepted by testing under extreme conditions, but then you go on to say: "Testing in a laboratory" isn't equivalent to "testing under extreme conditions." Where possible, laboratories are the preferred venue for experiments because extraneous outside influences can be excluded, there can be tight control over conditions like temperature, pressure, etc, and possible influences can be studied one at a time.Many sciences involve making detailed measurements and observations outside the laboratory, like astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology. One can't study either galaxies or the mating habits of the grizzly bear in the lab.Science begins by noticing a phenomenon, then formulating a hypothetical explanation for it. Tests are created for this hypothesis (in essence, these tests are predictions and conducting the tests are experiments), and if these tests have the expected outcome then the hypothesis is supported. If others successfully replicate the experiments with the same results, then the hypothesis becomes accepted theory."Testing under extreme conditions" and "testing in the laboratory" aren't what make something science, though of course they can be very appropriate approaches depending upon what one is studying.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

No, you still have it mixed up, which is clear when you say this: The realization that evolution had taken place was around before Darwin (I wouldn't necessarily say "long before Darwin"), but there was no theory of the causes behind evolution. What Darwin introduced that was new was a theory of how evolution happened, which he said was by means of descent with modification and natural selection.So when you go on to say: This is clearly wrong. That evolution has occurred and is occurring is not considered a theory, but an actual fact. It can even be observed in real time using bacterial experiments. Natural selection is usually just called "natural selection" and not "the theory of natural selection." I suppose there might be some contexts in which it might make sense to call it a theory, but I can't think of any offhand. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that is part and parcel of evolution, and it definitely is not a competing theory with evolution. This, too, is wrong. Since natural selection is a key component of evolutionary theory, proving that it doesn't happen would have to be considered a serious blow to evolutionary theory.--Percy

Hi Malangyar,You're getting enough replies correcting you on the same points that I'll spare you my version. Suffice to say that evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, and so forth, already have well-established scientific definitions. If you're opposed to evolution then you need to develop criticisms of what it actually is, rather than what you think it is.--Percy

You mean to say you're not opposed to evolution? Interesting. We don't usually see misunderstandings like yours from non-creationists. But whatever your position, criticisms either of evolution itself or of the views of others on evolution need to be based on what evolution actually is, rather than what you think it is.--Percy

Sure, if you like, but most people use the term "fact" to refer to things that are fairly obviously true. However, if you'd like to note that all knowledge is tentative, including what's right before our very eyes, then I not only agree with you, I've argued this here on several occasions. There is nothing that we can absolutely know.However, as Modulous similarly argues, as a convenience we usually just call things a fact when they're fairly obvious. We could call what I'm doing now "the theory that I'm typing on a keyboard," but we usually just say that it's a fact that I'm typing on a keyboard. Sure it's possible this is just a fake keyboard and the letters are appearing on the screen by coincidence, or that I'm dreaming and this isn't really happening, or some other unlikely possibility, but generally we refer to obviously true things as facts.If you'd like you can dispute whether the evidence that evolution has occurred is sufficient to qualify it as a fact, which is a common position of creationists, but if you're not disputing this then calling it "the theory that evolution occurred," or more accurately "the extremely well-confirmed theory that evolution occurred," is just an unnecessary mouthful. Within science, that evolution has occurred is accepted as a fact.--Percy

Now you're just playing word games, giving special meanings to terms and then using them in sentences where those special meanings aren't apparent. Needless to say, I didn't say anything like what anyone unaware of your special definitions would think you're saying here.--Percy

This is sophistry: It's sophistry because this is *not* the way the scientific community looks at it, and this is not an accurate conclusion from what anyone's been saying. That evolution above the species level has occurred is a rather obvious conclusion from the evidence, not a theory. As I said, calling everything we know a theory is an unnecessary mouthful, and the scientific community does not do this.I said I agree with you that there is nothing we can know absolutely, and I meant that. That doesn't mean everything is a theory, it just means that ultimately all knowledge is tentative. The word "theory" has its own definition, and if I can offer one, it is a framework of understanding within which evidence can be interpreted and predictions be made.--Percy