Evolution Basics: Is Evolution Scientific?
Monday August 25, 2008
This question isn't as simple as it sounds, but the short answer is yes, evolution is science. Evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.
Read Article: Is Evolution Scientific?
Comments
Evolution is a science. Of course, not complete. But that’s the beauty of science, they can admit when they don’t have all of the information. Evolution has been tested and proven for quite some time, and at this point I think the only people who don’t believe in evolution still consider dinosaur bones to be placed in the earth by the Devil to trick us.
Hi, Jack
Always lurking, aren’t you?
Here you go jackass, and these aren’t even mine. There from the “evolution education wiki.” Yeah, evolutionists are SOOOOO secretive:
1. Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don’t. For example, if species taken to be closely related (e.g. chimpanzees and humans) had been shown to have radically different DNA sequences, this would have falsified evolution.
2. The genetic code (the mapping of DNA to amino acids) could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
3. If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
4. The discovery of fossils in rock from the wrong time period (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) would falsify evolution.
5. If geology or cosmology had shown the earth to be young (i.e. the 6,000 to 15,000 year time span claimed by young earthers) this would not allow any time for evolution.
Jack,
You seem to say that anybody who accepts the theory of evolution must be an atheist, the same preposterous lie that Ben Stein tried to sell in his movie flop “Expelled”. There are plenty of religious people who do not have a problem with evolution (see, for example, http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm).
I urge you to download the third and most recent version of “Science, Evolution and Creationism” from the National Academy of Sciences’ web site(www.nas.edu). Read it with an open mind and find out what the most distinguished society of scientists in the nation has to say on the subject of evolution, creationism and ID. If, after doing that, you still disagree that evolution is scientific, feel free to come back and offer your rational rebuttal.
Austin, Why the heck to you put up with Jack Savage?
My advice (for what it’s worth)
Don’t let him guilt you into giving him a forum by saying to don’t believe in Free Speech. This is you’re article, make him find his own place to chat because he has clearly shown more interest in bashing you than rational discussion or constructive criticism.
Delete every single one of his posts, he clearly has no intention to examine the facts without misdirection and obfuscation. He is neither curious or open, and adds nothing to the conversation.
Abortion is completely unfortunate. I have a friend who was raped and was pregnant by the offender. She had an abortion. I do not think this is wrong. She was 14 and decided that it was in her (and the baby’s best interest to terminate pregnancy). Population is growing so fast. China has a single child rule. The US should only allow the smart people to breed. College degree = 2 children…Mother and father with college degrees = 3 children. I’m so tired of the whole abortion thing. It’s up to the woman…period. The other party has very little say.
Austin, Why the heck to you put up with Jack Savage?
My advice (for what it’s worth)
Don’t let him guilt you into giving him a forum by saying to don’t believe in Free Speech. This is you’re article, make him find his own place to chat because he has clearly shown more interest in bashing you than rational discussion or constructive criticism.
Delete every single one of his posts, he clearly has no intention to examine the facts without misdirection and obfuscation. He is neither curious or open, and adds nothing to the conversation.
Well said, M(r)s Docile, although it could have been a little more coherent (no offence intended).
Ooops! I didn’t mean to cross that out.
M(r)s Docile, it looks like Mr Cline has heeded your words.
Did you read the NAS publication? I did not think so. Let us know whe you do. Perhaps you will have something intelligent to offer at that time.
My comment was directed at Jack.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
Austin, you’re just a whiney assed little girl. You can’t defend any of your bxllshxt and get offended at anyone who knows more than you and can throw your whole blog into a tizzy by stating a few simple facts and asking questions that embarrass you because you are intellectually dishonest. Otherwise you wouldn’t be deleting my posts.
I am laughing at you. Your belief that atheism is true is so insipid that you can’t really discuss it. All you can do is say “prove it.”
And it was a woman who convinced you that you should delete my posts. You must also be a woman for real men don’t get upset and start censoring.
So now we know you don’t feel that atheism is important enough to defend and that it needs protection by censorship.
Are you still looking for those lost atheist Indian tribes?
Go ahead and continue your hypocrisy.
Don’t ever complain again if someone censors your nonsense. OK?