Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

The truth is that evolution is not a scientific theory.

[Super Nova]

The truth is that evolution is not a scientific theory.

Why?

Then we can begin.

[Super Nova]

The truth is that evolution is not a scientific theory.

FD,

You provide not reasoning for this view really.

- You have tried it is not Falsifiable - It clearly is.
- You have said it's not predicatable - well it is however we can not model it totally due the the complexity of the initial state (the universe) and it's non-linear charactertistics.
- You don't appear to have a clear understanding of what a "Scientific Theory" is.

I think we need to get the foundation right. In the context of biology, evolution is genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations. Let’s use this as the definition. After all we are talking about the evolution of life not the evolution of pizza making.

From what I have read it is clear that nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community. It flags a concern about your objectivity on this issue FD. Do you put your beliefs a head of evidence that supports this theory.

The observation of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that evidence, have been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists for nearly a century. Biologists who are scientists would be best placed to decide what’s a valid scientific theory.

I see no argument from you FD that leads me to think that mainstream biologists who do this for a living have it wrong. They are the most qualified to refine and test this theory and to determine if it is a valid scientific theory. It meets al lthe requirements to be call a "scientific theory".

All the information you need to understand the position of science on your point on are the following 2 pages below.

Read them and come back with your argument why they are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... y_and_fact

If you don't understand any of it, point them out and we can discuss.

[freediver]

The truth is that evolution is not a scientific theory.

Why?

Then we can begin.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... =8&t=10457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You provide not reasoning for this view really.

Unless of course you count the last 28 pages of this thread.

I think we need to get the foundation right. In the context of biology, evolution is genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations. Let’s use this as the definition.

That is a very broad definition - which is why evolution is not a scientific theory, because it includes so much that is clearly not scientific.

From what I have read it is clear that nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources

This is not a criticism of evolution.

It flags a concern about your objectivity on this issue FD.

It flags a concern about your objectivity that you have no clue what my argument is so you make one up for me instead.

Biologists who are scientists would be best placed to decide what’s a valid scientific theory.

Actually no, it is a question of philosophy. You don't necessarily need to understand the distinction to do the science, but it helps.

I see no argument from you FD that leads me to think that mainstream biologists who do this for a living have it wrong.

That is because you have no clue what I am saying or whether mainstream biologists agree with it.

All the information you need to understand the position of science on your point on are the following 2 pages below.

Would you mind pointing out where it refers to any of my arguments?

Read them and come back with your argument why they are wrong.

How about you read what my position is first then come back when you figure out what we are talking about?

[Super Nova]

FD points to this area of this thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... =8&t=10457

Which points to this link: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evol ... heory.html

Which starts with this...............

Evolution is not a scientific theory

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Unless of course you count the last 28 pages of this thread.

Fuck FD. I was including tghe last 28 pages. What it appears I have missed is this link above. You expect me to read and argue against that shit. What a waste of time.

If that stuff is the bases of your aguement, I need time to read it. It looks like you are promoting even that Evolutuon should not be taught in schools. Now I know were you are coming from.

Reading your site makes it all clearer to me now.

That is a very broad definition - which is why evolution is not a scientific theory, because it includes so much that is clearly not scientific.

Bullshit. Your definition of "scientific theory" is wrong.

his is not a criticism of evolution.

It is if you don't even think it should be taught in schools.

It flags a concern about your objectivity that you have no clue what my argument is so you make one up for me instead.

You're right. I have struggled to see what is the bases of your arguement. Looking at your site I am beginning to get an insight.

Actually no, it is a question of philosophy. You don't necessarily need to understand the distinction to do the science, but it helps.

No it's a question of good science.

That is because you have no clue what I am saying or whether mainstream biologists agree with it.

Yep, you have been clear as mud but angain your site provides this extra insight I have missed.

Would you mind pointing out where it refers to any of my arguments?

Yes. When I have 8 hours to spare I may look into that.

How about you read what my position is first then come back when you figure out what we are talking about?

Is your position the stuff on the site in the link?

Is it really? Please clarify that for me please.

[freediver]

It looks like you are promoting even that Evolutuon should not be taught in schools.

No.

Now I know were you are coming from.

No again. But I suspect you are getting closer.

Bullshit. Your definition of "scientific theory" is wrong.

This sounds more like you get it. Can you explain why you think it is wrong?

Is your position the stuff on the site in the link?

I own OzPolitic and wrote most of those articles. But you should be a bit more specific.

[Super Nova]

Did you write this?

Evolution is not a scientific theory

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Is this your position?

[Freediver.]

I think evolution shouldnt be classed as a science because it is a never ending untestable hypothesis that doesnt harm anyone but I think AGW should be taught in school, change the economy to suit, the science is settled and force humans to use less energy

It's a philosophical question to ask where does my hypocrisy end?

[Super Nova]

No again. But I suspect you are getting closer.

This sounds more like you get it. Can you explain why you think it is wrong?

I own OzPolitic and wrote most of those articles. But you should be a bit more specific.

You know what FD, I'm not going to play "warmer warmer... colder colder" with you.

Restate your position (assuming it has been stated) in clear terms.

Then we will discuss that. You need to be a bit (a lot) more specific.

I cannot guess from your hosted pages what your view is even though you say you wrote most of it but not all. Which bits are your opinion that relate. Otherwise your just pissing around creating a run around.

[freediver]

Did you write this?

Evolution is not a scientific theory

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Is this your position?

Yes that's the one. And that article is a good explanation of my position. There are a few follow-on articles as well. They tend to cover all the criticisms people make of my position.