The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

The_vagabond7 said:

appolose said:

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).

iT WOUDL be falsified pretty quickly if they found bird fossiles that pre-date dinosaurs. There are plenty of things that would falsify that claim. Their is plenty of evidence to back the claim from physiology to genetics.  And until we can detect gravitons or whatever it is that makes gravity we can only look for evidence that objectsof mass have gravitational force. The whole humans only have 23 chromosomes compared to the 24 of our suppsoeds andcestors would have been a huge falsification forc ommon descent if they hadn't found where they fused (which by the by was exactly what they predicted they would find) on...what was it, chromosome number 2? With the centromeres and tellomers ect..sorry...drinking. Evolution could have been falsified a thousand times over but just about every prediction that the thoery makes turns out to be true. Fuck, they could even predict exactly where in the world to find a fish fossil with the nose on top of it's head and specific features in it's joints and found it. Fuck, give me some time to sober up and I'll look up the name and details on the proper fossils. Making accurate predictions is also a very large part of science and evolution gets that in spades. Large portions of science aren't repetable in a lab simply because of their nature, adn to the extent you can evolve somthing in a lab we've done so. We've speciated plants, and observed the speciation of insects. Other than being able to create new animals on demand in some srt of fast forward biosphere, evolution does everything the scientific method coudl demand of it. the kind of demand you place on it elimates prety much all science except for applied phsyics and some chemistry. But I've talked to you extensively enough to know that you can get a bit wacko, but the poitn stands that as much as we hold something like geology or cosmology to be scientific, evolution is scientific. What;s some good 90s music? feeling nostalgic.

Finding a bird fossil the predates dinosaurs (dating methods being another unfalsifiable thing) would not disprove that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  It could simply mean that it happened to evolve from something else during that time frame, and not contradict the current belief that the fossil record shows that todays birds are descendents of dinosaurs.

As for evolution being observed today, yes, I would agree that that is science (not that I think it is actually evolution, mind you).

Sadly, I do not know of any good 90's music :(