Evolution is not science

Just to clear this up.Deduction tells us how to get from the theory to its predictions.Induction tells us that confirmation (so far) of the predictions (provisionally) confirms the theory.Deduction is logical reasoning, induction is empirical reasoning.

And so IamJoseph's long, hopeles struggle against the English language continues.What you seem to be saying is that even if all the evidence is completely consistent with the theory, that's still no reason to accept it.Well done, you've just abolished the whole of science. OK, come clean, that doesn't mean anything, does it?Are you familiar with the term "word salad"? There is nothing in the theory of evolution that predicts that we should be able to supply the name of a human living "pre-6000".

Y ... e ... s ... but these are observations rather than experiments, aren't they?

How it happened is the theory of evolution. That it happened is the fact that the theory of evolution attempts to explain.(That it happened is also, in certain epistemological senses, a theory, but when we talk about "the theory of evolution", we mean the explanation of how it happened.) His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, in fact. A fascinating person. You can read about him and his circle in Jenny Uglow's book The Lunar Men, which I thoroughly recomend to anyone who likes that sort of thing. You're slightly wrong. Remember, I said "what happened in nature", not "what happens in nature".Let me give you an example. Suppose that scientists, in their labs, could artificially, experimentally, produce a reptile-bird intermediate. Would that have any bearing, really, on the question of whether in fact evolution naturally produced such a thing umpteen-million years ago?No --- for that we have to go to observations of the fossil record, molecular phylogeny, or what-have-you. But you can, for example, go and look at, for example, the fossils of Archaeopteryx "again and again". A repeated experiment under artificial conditions isn't (per se) better than an observation of the natural world that you can repeat as often as you like. A source?Look, scientists do in fact evidence their theories by, for example, observing the orbits of planets. If you want a source saying that the theory of gravity is scientific, who would you trust if you don't trust scientists?In the same way, I could find you a zillion scientists to say that evolution is scientific, but if you doubt them, to whom else can I turn as witnesses?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In certain ways, it would make more sense if people did use words like this, but they don't. When scientists talk about the "theory of evolution", they mean how it happened --- natural selection, reproduction, sexual recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and so forth.Unfortunately it is given to neither you nor me to change the English language.Hence, the following is not quite correct in its implications --- Yes, in such a case evolution would still be standing. But the theory of evolution would be so much waste paper.And it might help creationists a little bit, since if there was no conceivable way in which evolution could have occurred, this would help them to cast doubt on the proposition that it has occurred.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, just as it would be better to have three fossils to observe than one. But this is like asking for a source saying that chemical experiments done in beakers are just as valid as those done in test-tubes. I don't think that any scientist has ever bothered to say this in so many words.If you like, though, plenty of our members are scientists, and I'm sure that one will be glad to say so. (I'm a mathematician, which is not quite the same thing.)But it is evident from the practice of scientists that this is what they think. They are quite happy, for example, to confirm the theory of gravity by looking at the orbits of planets. Look, if you want to call the theory that evolution occurred "the theory that evolution occurred", then I'll be right behind you cheering you on. But if you want to call this "the theory of evolution", then that's just muddying the waters, because that phrase already has a meaning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But not "A Short Proof of the Theory of Evolution". Everything that is true, and that is not a qualium, is a theory.We may also call it a fact if (a) it is certain beyond reasonable doubt (b) it is itself the subject of a further theory.

To convince other people that it's a fact. If my own attitude has not been even "somewhat" reasonable, you have yet to convince me of this.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, my dear chap.No, that's not what creationists mean when they deny "macroevolution". Or not all of them. For example, AnswersinGenesis write, here:"New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model."However, they not only deny that this is "macroevolution", they deny that it is evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

They mean "form" as in "evolve" except that they deny that this is evolution.Look, here's a picture from their website. But evolution, they will tell you, is impossible and unscientific and an Atheist Lie.It is understandable that at this point you should be lost for words.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

At which point we're right back to the problem that RAZD raised: that they must now define what it means for one organsim to be "not at all like" another.And this screws them in two ways.First, intermediate forms exist.Second, by any genetic or morphological criterion, humans and chimps are about as like one another as two species can be. Creationists cannot produce a definition of "not at all like" that will lump members of the same family together but separate chimps from humans.---I was once challenged by a creationist to provide fossil evidence of land-animal-to-whale evolution. So I did, 'cos that's easy. At which point he declared that that was just "microevolution" and so didn't prove anything.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, yes.All any Christian needs to do is point out that there is no real conflict between the truths revealed by science and the Christian faith and then just get on with it.Most of 'em do. The sad, sick, sorry remainder is known as "creationism".

I might almost call that a distinction without a difference.I'll bet $100 against your $10 that if you go back to them with your new-found knowledge of the scientific method, and explain it to them, they will not slap their foreheads and exclaim: "Oh, how silly we've been".They'll just come up with some more crap. Let me guess. "No intermediate forms ..."; "The Second Law of Thermodynamics ..."; "No new species have been observed ..."At which point, feel free to come back to these forums, where we'll help them out. Better still, just tell 'em to come on these forums themselves and debate some people who know the whole subject from A to Z.But also, let me hazard another guess. Their first line of defense wasn't this rubbish about experiments in laboratories. Their first line of defense was to lie to you about what evolution is. They shifted their ground when they found out that you know what it actually is.Now, let me tell you their last line of defense. This will be to say that although all the scientific evidence is against them, this is because all scientists are Evil Atheist Liars Who Hate God, and the Evil Scientists just made all the evidence up.Creationism is "sick and sorry", as I have described it, because it's a paranoid psychosis. You may be luckier than I have been, and honesty compels me to admit that I have myself encountered honorable exceptions to this rule, but I wouldn't bet on it. This is how it goes.

Yes, that's about right.I wouldn't use invertebrate-to-vertebrate evolution as the clinching argument, 'cos we don't know that much about it. Yes, we have Pikaia and Haikouella, but it's not a complete slam-dunk. When we're talking transitions between major taxonomic groups, reptiles-to-mammals is the best in terms of completeness of the known fossil record, and reptiles-to-birds is the best in terms of being gobsmacking yet true.

When they say "assumptions" I presume they're referring to things that have been empirically verified to be true, and when they say "faith" I presume that they're referring to knowledge based on evidence.Perhaps you should point this out to them, maybe explained what these two words actually mean.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.