|
CHYUII said:
Evolution is a philosophy because scientific method can never be applied to it.
Oh dear, you better tell that to the thousands of evolutionary biologists who have already applied the sceintific method to it. Evolution has made many testable predictions and has not once been falsified. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the scientific method can't be applied to the theory of evolution.
We have no way of researching it, because we have no way of reproducing the moments in which life was created on Earth.
Evolution does not deal with the moments in which life was first created, that is the study of abiogenesis and entirely seperate to the study of evolution. Evolution is only dealing with the changes in already existing life.
If it is a fact then scientist would not still call it a theory.
Most scientists will tell you that evolution itself is a fact, we know through observation of the fossil record that life changes over time, the theory of evolution is the mechanism that explains this fact. In any case a theory in science can have a huge amount of proof for it and still be a theory, for example the theory of general relativity. No matter how much proof a theory has it is a still a theory because under science a theory essentially means something which explains the underlying cause of an observation and from which predictions can then be made.
A fact, a theory and a law are all distinct under science. A fact is an observation, a theory is a broad mechanism causing that observation and a law is a single statement that is true under all conditions.
Statistically speaking it is very improbable that random chance gave rise to order (not to mention it is against the PROVEN Laws of Science).
If the law of science you are speaking of is the second law of thermodynamics then you are highly incorrect. The second law of thermodyanamics only applies in a closed system, the environment is not a closed system we recieve a huge amount of energy from the sun.
Darwin said that if it could be proven that life forms did not become more complicated over a series of successive improvements, then his theory would be proven wrong.
And life forms do become more complicated through mutations such as gene duplication. Also Darwin isn't the authoratative voice on evolution, he was wrong on many counts which have now been corrected in the modern theory of evolution.
Micheal Denton an atheist wrote a book called evolution: a theory in Crisis, He spent the first part of the book ripping religion. And then went on to make his case-
And he is not alone in those beliefs other scientist believe the same.
Interestingly Michael Denton's latter book Natures Destiny assumes evolution to be true.
I am not anti- science but I am Anti- Dogma and the theory of Evo. is sometimes just that.
Dogma doesn't change, the theory of evolution is constantly revised in line with new research and information. Thats what happens in science.
I believe in Micro but not Macro.
Micro and Macro are exactly the same thing, just over different timescales.
The rest is more in line with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is more inline with the ACTUAL LAWS of SCIENCE.
But this is a free country and I do not mean to step on anothers beliefs, we are free to worship as we choose...
|
