The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

ManusJustus said:

appolose said:

I'm going to quote myself from an older thread here,

As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.

That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this mightIn any evense be a good thing to know.

One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".

On a side note, I would like to point out that science can easily come to a supernatural conclusion; if we have two contradicting sets of well-established observations, then some kind of non-physical explanation would be needed to reconcile the two of them (can't have a contradiction).  Therefore, it would not be in the interest of science to throw out the supernatural as a possibility (which is where ID is concerned (albeit, when it goes historically, it no longer is science, either)).

Claiming that science can't be applied to the past is an absurd notion.  'Historical Science,' as you put it, claims that the past was like the present.  Physics worked the same way as it does now, chemistry worked the same way it does now, and so forth. 

This logic is not limited to science.  Everyone makes this very assumption in their everyday lives, that the future and present will be like the past.  Even animals are able to use this simple idea.  If you did not make this assumption, you could not function, as almost everything you do is based upon an experience you had in the past and you assume the same will hold true for the present and future.  You dont go to sleep and hope gravity works tomorrow, you dont look for food in the washing machine when you get hungry because you dont know where food is stored, you dont get in your car and wonder if the chemsitry of combustion will work today, you dont call your boss before you go to work everyday and ask if the office building is in the same place it was yesterday, and so forth.

All the Theory of Evolution (as well as fundamental theories in almost every other field) does is base itself on that assumption.  Even the Thoery of Gravity that you quoted makes the same assumption, that physics wont change from one time to the next.

That has little to do with evolutionary history; it is proposed, for example, that some dinosaurs evolved into birds in the distant past.  This proposition is unobserable, unverifiable, and cannot be falsified.  Therefore, given the definition of science, it cannot be scientific.  Assuming that the past operated in the same way the preseent does does not grant observation of the event.

My point is that if the objection that that which cannot be falsified should not be taught as science, then evolution should not be taught as science (the history of it, at least).