|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary Biology as a Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Science means *knowledge*, not speculative philosophy or naturalism. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. Falsifiability is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must--at least in principle--be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.
Neither model of macroevolution or creation with regards to origins is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested because we cannot repeat the history of origins. However, the results of origins can be observed and tested regardless of what we believe about how they came about. Whether we are a creationist or an evolutionist, we can each test and observe the scientific data, the evidence of life. We can define two models of origins and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if macroevolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to best predict the things we should then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true even if we cannot prove it by actual scientific repetition. According to the evolution model, the origin and development of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws and processes operating in a self-contained universe. The basis of the creation model is that at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe. In this form the creation model is completely independent of the biblical record, and can be evaluated solely in terms of the scientific data. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
It seems to me that this topic is absolutely a question about what is creation science? In fact, the thread begins with this:
"I'm going to try to constrain this to a discussion on whether "Creation Science" and "evolution" are actually science. Kelly has claimed that "Creation Science" is in fact scientific, while disparaging evolution as unobservable and unscientific." Of course, this poster has completely misrepresented what I have said, but never-the-less, he is asking the questions are creation and evolution theories really science? He has also misrepresented just what creation science is in this remark: "Creation Science begins with a literal reading of Genesis - species are specially Created, and do not rise from pre-existing species."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I think you should simply look up the definition of science: In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.
I am not really interested in discussing evolution per sey, but rather, I like to compare the sciences of evolution and creation to determine which model better fits the evidence. If we can't say the word creation in this thread, I am not going to post here. In fact, I am leaving this forum for now. I posted my reason here in the "Best Approaches to deal with Fundamentalism" thread: http://EvC Forum: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism -->EvC Forum: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
It would be a waste of my time to even try to have any kind of debate here. We would continually fall back on that old, "Creation Science is religion"..."No it isn't"..."Yes it is" nonsense. I would like to get past that. But if you aren't willing to look at the book I recommend, no problem. You can wallow in your ignorance as to what Creation Science is with all your friends here who are as blind about it as you. I hope you all have fun preaching to the choir. I find that boring whether it is done here or at a Creationists' website.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Unless you at least come to grips with the concept of "What is Creation Science?" I am not willing to do the work. It would be so much easier to start on equal footing.
I am a busy mom and student who isn't really able to spend all day at the computer. We have been snowbound for a few days here, but now it is back to life as usual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
The rest is really up to you. I am not going to spoon-feed anyone. I will wait for you to catch-up. Then I will offer debate material. Or, maybe I will simply have to admit to myself that this is just another typical evolution website filled with closedminded people who really don't want to be challenged in any way. It really is up to you. I am not running away. I am simply too busy to add "teacher" to my list of things to do today.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I agree with you. Testing the results/evidence left behind whether by a process called macroevolution or by creation is scientific. This is precisely my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
But I find that very hard to believe given the fact that no one here demonstrates to me that they know the first thing about what Creation Science is.
I am more than willing to bring the arguments here and discuss or debate them. But first I need to know that everyone at least recognizes what Creation Science really is. I think that people here need to know where I am really coming from and not just where they perceive or think I am coming from. Respect is something that can only benefit everyone who participates in this forum. It has to go both ways. From my point of view, everyone here is quite disrespectful towards Creation and its adherents, and why? Because you don't really know what Creation Science is or what the claims are. I know this based on everything I have read here. And also, I have offered one challenge, and from what I can tell, there has been only one person up for it. People need to first and foremost discover the truth about what is creation science. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
But this old argument is useless.
Mutations do not explain drug-resistant bacteria. Scientists discovered that bacteria were resistant to certain antibiotics even before the antibiotics were invented. Contrary to popular opinion, drug-resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It doesn't even demonstrate the production of favorable mutation. It does demonstrate natural selection, but only selection among already existing variations within a type.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024