Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Uriel1

Guest
The theory of evolution is called “a theory” and not a scientific law.

The theory of evolution was not subjected to the scientific method so is not “scientific” per se. It It has never made any prediction which might be verified, other than suggesting in the first edition of Origin that a bear might evolve into a whale like creature 1, but that suggestion was quickly removed from the second edition. Neo-Darwinists have long promised a missing link but only fakes have ever emerged.

Darwin’s “theory” is more of a hypothesis, which remains “not-proven” because the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution states that the complete diversity of life today arose from a single common ancestor which developed from a primordial chemical soup billions of years ago, when no-one was on earth to observe and record it. Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.
Genetic homeostasis 1 (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

Nothing from ancient pre-history is observable, repeatable, nor can it be measured.

Darwinism is non observable, so is simply not falsifiable, thus as an explanation for the start of life on earth (abiogenesis), Evolution is not a scientific law, nor a scientific theory, nor a scientific thesis; it is nothing more than a flimsy hypothesis, but which has now become a man-made proto-religion.

So why is it taught as a science using public funds?
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
So why is it taught as a science using public funds?
Click to expand...
I’m not going to defend evolution, but gravity and all of quantum mechanics are theories, and I doubt you’d question their legitimacy. Einstein himself hated quantum mechanics and towards the end of his life, created experiments to try and prove it wrong. They all proved quantum mechanics to be correct. And all modern technology speaks to quantum mechanics being correct. And yet, it’s all just theory.
 
Please look up how the word “theory” is used in a scientific context.
 
I understand that Alex; please read my post fully and see that I said " Evolution is not a scientific law, nor a scientific theory, nor a scientific thesis; it is nothing more than a flimsy hypothesis, but which has now become a man-made proto-religion."
 
Last edited:
I did and I’m afraid you’re wrong. It is a scientific theory.
 
Really? So, what’s gravity? I’ll care to bet, nine times out of ten, you’ll say it’s a force. But:

www.britannica.com

Gravity | Definition, Physics, & Facts

Gravity, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest force known in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter. Yet, it also controls the trajectories of bodies in the universe and the structure...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
“The works of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein dominate the development of gravitational theory. Newton’s classical theory of gravitational force held sway from his Principia, published in 1687, until Einstein’s work in the early 20th century. Newton’s theory is sufficient even today for all but the most precise applications. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts only minute quantitative differences from the Newtonian theory except in a few special cases. The major significance of Einstein’s theory is its radical conceptual departure from classical theory and its implications for further growth in physical thought.”
Click to expand...
Gravity is a fact, if that’s what you mean by law. But the way it works is by no means a law. You can describe Newton’s three laws as such. They’re definite, defined. But gravity? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong Alex; It It has never made any prediction which might be verified, other than suggesting in the first edition of Origin that a bear might evolve into a whale like creature, but Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

This renders Darwinism a failed hypothesis
 
I agree partially, but we can use it’s predictions to escape the earth’s field and slingshot around other planets or their moons. Gravity is testable, and falsifiable and predictable.

Evolution is none of these
 
I’m very sorry, but you are wrong in almost everything you’ve said here.

In science, a “theory” is a description of a mechanism in nature. A scientific law is simply a description of a consistently observable fact. So, for example, the Big Bang is a description of how the Universe acted at its origin. The law of conservation doesn’t explain anything-- it just points out the observation that energy seems never to be created or destroyed.

My point is that hearing the word “theory” and then saying, “so. . . they don’t really know” is a misunderstanding.

With regards to “proof,” the same misunderstanding goes. This word is almost never used in science. A proof is a mathematical conclusion, not an observational one. E=mc2 is an example of a proof: it takes mathematical axioms and shows that the lead to a certain conclusion. However, the mathematical proof doesn’t “prove” that the Universe represents this equation-- that was left for _ experimental evidence_.
 
I’m going to leave this one to the others to explain. Have fun.
 
Evolution is very clearly a scientific theory. It involves a robust explanation of the mechanism for genetic traits. It is testable, although obviously you can’t do live tests with dead species.

I’m not even saying that evolution is complete, and I’m certainly not saying there’s no God. However, based on what you’ve said, I think you might want to spend a little more time learning the basics of scientific terminology before you make your own threads about the subject.
 
benjamin1973 said:
I’m very sorry, but you are wrong in almost everything you’ve said here.

In science, a “theory” is a description of a mechanism in nature. A scientific law is simply a description of a consistently observable fact. So, for example, the Big Bang is a description of how the Universe acted at its origin. The law of conservation doesn’t explain anything-- it just points out the observation that energy seems never to be created or destroyed.

My point is that hearing the word “theory” and then saying, “so. . . they don’t really know” is a misunderstanding.

With regards to “proof,” the same misunderstanding goes. This word is almost never used in science. A proof is a mathematical conclusion, not an observational one. E=mc2 is an example of a proof: it takes mathematical axioms and shows that the lead to a certain conclusion. However, the mathematical proof doesn’t “prove” that the Universe represents this equation-- that was left for _ experimental evidence_.
Click to expand...
Ben, Oh Ben,

What is a hypothesis?

Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

Darwinism cannot demonstrate it defeats Genetic homeostasis, so Genetic Homeostasis renders Darwin’s Hypothesis as junk
 
Uriel1 said:
The theory of evolution is called “a theory” and not a scientific law.
Click to expand...
Atomic theory, gravitational theory, quantum theory, these things are termed theories mostly out of historical contingency. All science is essentially a model of the universe, which suits us well enough for further research. It is coherent, in that all the different studies in which scientists engage fit together without conflict, and comprehensive, meaning that we do not treat anything in the universe as outside the model. Evolution provides an elegant and comprehensive explanation for various biological observations, and coheres with various other observations in geology and cosmology. That makes it scientific.

In common with a lot of creationists who are not scientists, your objection to what is taught is based on your ideas about what science or laws or theories, or whatever, ought to be, and not what real scientists think they are. It’s no use telling a builder that he shouldn’t be building a car-park because a car-park isn’t a building, and it’s no use telling a scientist that he shouldn’t be teaching some aspect of science because it isn’t scientific. We scientists will decide what science is, thank you, and then we’ll teach it. If you don’t think public money should be spent on it, then you’ll have to vote for it.
 
There are already a couple of very long-running threads dealing with evolution, one with over 1000 replies and the other approaching 3000. . .we might have the bases covered on this topic already.
 
I’m not sure how to respond. You’ve clearly gotten your ideas from a site somewhere, and been impressed with somebody’s comments. But literally everything you’re saying shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms you’re trying to use.

I’m going to walk away from this one. But let me say this–you will be taken more seriously if you spend some time learning how the words “proof,” “theory,” “hypothesis,” and “law” are used in academic circles, instead of trying to just use them as you normally use them.

Then read what Darwin actually said, instead of just reading the 4th-generation distilled baloney that websites often suffer from. You might be surprised at how careful he was, how Christian he was, and how much of his book you actually agree with.

Since copyright is expired on his works, you can find free books on project Gutenberg, here: Books: darwin (sorted by popularity) - Project Gutenberg
 
Last edited:
I will add, for the member who best supports his view of evolution, @Hugh_Farey is your most knowledgeable and well-spoken poster.

For the Creationist view, @Aloysium is your best bet.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Uriel1:
What is a hypothesis?
Click to expand...
If you need to ask then you shouldn’t be telling those who know, what to do.
Click to expand...
If you read my OP you would see that In know what a hypothesis is, and the “theory” of evolution is mere conjecture, untestable and cannot respond to Genetic homeostasis which counters it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top