quote:
because there doesnt seem to be a clear cut answer. The scientific method 'was' at one time about observing and experimenting, now its simply observing and experiments are not always necessary (especially for evolution)
There is a clear cut answer. Science was NEVER restricted to experiments. Experiments are just a way of generating observations - a very good way of doing so - but it is observation that is important. Newton extrapolated from his experiments relating to gravity, to using gravity to explain planetary motion. But all our information on planetary motion comes from observation, not experiment.
quote:
Yet some say that evolution can be reproduced in a lab, others say you cant directly observe it, others say its the fossil evidence that proves it (of which there are huge gaps)
You are confusing things. Bacterial evolution can be reproduced in a laboratory (but even there creationists will argue that the observation isn't direct enough !). Other aspects of evolution obviously cannot. There's no contrradiction there.
The fossil evidence DOES provide strong evidence for evolution (although there is plenty more from living organisms). To mention just one example, the discovery of
Tiktaalik. Evolution predicted that such a creature should have existed. Geology indicated where there was a good chance to find it. They went and looked - and it was there. While that is an especially impressive example, we are still discovering more intermediate fossils. There will probably always be gaps - there are limits to the fossil record - but we can be confident that the gaps will be smaller than they are now.
quote:
Also, why is it perfectly acceptable for science to have beliefs in things they cannot see based on indirect observations, yet creationists cannot? This is confusing to me, its like saying, I can use this tool to prove my point, but you cannot use it to prove yours.
The answer is simple. Creationists do NOT use the same tool. Nobody is preventing them from using it. Except themselves.
™ Version 4.2
