The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

Rath 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)).

I believe you have failed to understand the meaning of these words in some cases.

Observability. This does not mean that a process has to be observed as it occurs, if historical evidence of something exists observing that historical evidence is still observation. It is without a doubt that science is based purely on observed evidence - whether this evidence is observed as soon as the process has taken place or whether the evidence is observed millions of years after is inconsequential.

The fossil record would be considered historical evidence, yes?  In that notion, yes, I would naturally agree that the fossil record exists.  What does not, however is any hypothesis I come up with that includes it.  That is the unobservable part

Testability. The ability to make and test predictions does not necessarily require the process to be actively observable. In the case of evolution the predictions include things such as that more advanced organisms will be primarily in the newer layers and less advanced organisms in the lower layers. Or as Rubang pointed out the chromosone thing.

Evolutionary theory does not predict that more advanced organisms are found in newer layers; rather, it is observed that they are (no contesting there from me).  The theory does say that they are desendents of the lower life forms, and that is the untestability.

Repeatability. The same evidence of evolution has often been found in different places at different times. That is repetition.

This is the same case of the first two; there are things we find in the fossil record, yes, but those things are not the evolutionary theory.  Rather, the explanation of them is.

Falsifiability. Evolution is very falsifiable. Proving that genes do not mutate would demolish the theory of evolution.

I disagree; random mutation is a proposed mechanism of evolutionary theory.  Disproving it would not disprove the explanation of the fossil record.

Also science cannot come to a supernatural conclusion ever. If there are two contradicting sets of well observed observations (which interestingly enough sounds a lot like quantum and classical physics) scientists will work out to find out how and why they contradict. God is not falsifiable and as such can not ever be considered science.

By continuing to work out why they contradict, I suppose that would imply that it is believed one set of of observations must be false, which would contradict the basic principles of science (which is, it is assumed that, given enough observation, repetition etc, the theory is true).  As for God not being falsifiable; while that may be true, it is irrelevant as science must conclude it anyways.