Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

What you said is very true, you pin-pointed exactly why creationism fails so badly. You can't start with the "right" answer and never allow that answer to change. If that were so the universe would still be made of four elements (fire, air, water and earth) like the ancient greeks thought.One point about what you said though (and I get the feeling that you already know this, so this is more for others who read your post). One tactic by people attacking evolution is to say that it is "only a theory" as if this is some kind of flaw or reason to think it is all wrong. I know this isn't what you were trying to do, but when I first started reading your post I thought you were.For those who think that being a theory is a flaw, EVERYTHING science produces a theory. Einsteins theory of General Relativity is a theory, electromagnetics is a thoery, quantum mechanics is a theory, and evolution is no different to any of them.In science, theories don't become facts when they are verified. Facts and theories are not the same thing in any way whatsoever. Facts are simply things that are observable using the scientific method (ie repeatedly by anyone doing the measurements). Theories are models that explain those facts. More than that, they also have to predict future facts to be observed. If they don't do this then they're not falsifiable, as nothing you observe will ever be able to show them to be wrong.So in short, being called a "theory" is not in any way an insult in science. If a scientist manages to produce a theory then he'll be very happy indeed This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-30-2004 08:32 AM

quote:

---

WE have mixed apples and oranges here. Mathematically, all the above can be derived except evolution. Evolution is based purely on speculations, presuppositions, statistical improbabilities and assumptions. Therefore, this is not even science. But a philosophy based on naturalism.

---

So newtons laws are not science? He didn't derive them mathematically, he stated them after making observations about the universe. That is how science difference from maths, it makes observations about the universe and constructs models based around the observations. The same is true for general relativity and quantum mechanics etc. The point I am making is that "mathematical derivability" does not make something science.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-05-2006 07:54 AM

quote:

---

None of the other theories are really science - they describe abstractions of the universe, not the universe itself. Biology - evolution - is really the only "true" science.

---

Trying to star a war eh crash? lol I refuse to rise to the bait