if i may be permitted to quote some eminent minds on this subject, for example famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky who was not so dogmatic as one might imagine, for in his book evolution, he and his coworkers described evolution as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: 'scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively established.', now is that not interesting? using another respected source in this instance Dr. Karl Popper as the authority he also states: 'a hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.' wow, let us just take a moment to assimilate what is being said, if one cannot subject the theory to experimentation and thus the possibility of falsification, it does not belong in the realms of science!
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard another eminent mind and originator of the evolutionary principle of punctuated equilibrium (the idea that evolution happens in stages, because the fossil record did not fit with the idea of a continuous transmigration of one species into another, mmm, i wonder why?) also refers to Popper and says: 'a set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.'
this thinking has been used to exclude creation as legitimate yet on the very same basis, the evolutionary model has been accepted? duh!
interestingly we turn for our defense to Dr. Popper because he showing the utmost objectivity applies this same criterion to the evolutionary model, he states: 'I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program', thus quite simply since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method. dear reader it must be noted that Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research, how very very interesting Dr, Popper,!
Norman Cousins famous journalist and writer gives a definition of the scientific method that not only describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about science is the scientific method—a way of thinking systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific method.' - anatomy of an illness, pages. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific.
why was evolution so widely accepted, simply because it was the first non theistic theory that was plausible, not because it was scientific! and we know how them bad ol putty cat atheists don't dig our theism.
Anti evolutionists
20 Nov '08 19:01
Back to Top