Evolution is not a scientific theory

[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?

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.

Thank you, now I have some clarity on your views and position.

Sorry I missed your link if it was even eariler in this thread.

Give me a eon to read it and come back to you.

[IQ popping]

If evolution shouldnt be taught in science classes, do you hold the same standard for climate change? Do you think that AGW shouldn't be taught in schools within the science field?

[annielaurie]

FD,

What alarms me is that you state on your OzPol website that because "evolution is not a scientific theory" that it shouldn't be taught in schools as science.

This is downright dangerous thinking.

And if evolution were not to be taught in schools, then the other biological and natural sciences won't make sense. Everything we observe in the biosphere on earth makes sense when based on the scientific understanding of macro evolution.

I have met so many people who think this way in real life. They always have an agenda. They are most often religious or they believe in creationism or intelligent design, which are not science. They will say or do anything to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

Science calls it the theory of evolution. I say, let the scientists decide and let them do their work, and let them attract more and more students into the fields of the natural sciences.

We will need a whole new generation of young professionals who are trained in mathematics, physics and chemistry, geology, and the biosciences. Understanding of the evolution of life on earth cannot be left out, that would be preposterous.

[freediver]

If evolution shouldnt be taught in science classes, do you hold the same standard for climate change? Do you think that AGW shouldn't be taught in schools within the science field?

Sure - but nothing to do with whether it is scientific. Education should teach children how to think, not what to think. Science education should focus on the basics of science and how to research for yourself. If people understood that better, we would not have all these idiot 'skeptics' believing every strawman of AGW they come across on the internet.

This is downright dangerous thinking.

How is it dangerous?

And if evolution were not to be taught in schools

You are getting vague again. This is not what I actually said. If it makes you feel better, I am happy for the theory of natural selection to be taught as science.

I have met so many people who think this way in real life. They always have an agenda. They are most often religious or they believe in creationism or intelligent design, which are not science.

Can you explain why you think macro evolution is science but these other theories are not? What distinction are you making?

They will say or do anything to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

Strawman.

Science calls it the theory of evolution.

You do not speak on behalf of 'science'. It does not even make sense to attempt to. There are more than enough scientists who share my view on this. Not that argumentum ad populum is a valid argument.

We will need a whole new generation of young professionals who are trained in mathematics, physics and chemistry, geology, and the biosciences. Understanding of the evolution of life on earth cannot be left out, that would be preposterous.

Another strawman.

[annielaurie]

Leave scientists to define their theories as they will. Who are you, and who are the rest of us who are not scientists, to challenge what they do and how they work?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Leave scientists to define their theories as they will. Who are you, and who are the rest of us who are not scientists, to challenge what they do and how they work?

That logical fallacy ladies and gentlemen is the 'Appeal to Authority', which suggests that we who are not scientists have no right to opine upon matters scientific.

Thankfully, the field of science is at odds with Annie on that. They like the lay scientist and their input... indeed, in Astronomy, they would be bereft without those lay star watchers.

I do believe that Darwin himself was a lay scientist. Therefore, according to Annie... he had no business defining theories in science.

[annielaurie]

That logical fallacy ladies and gentlemen is the 'Appeal to Authority', which suggests that we who are not scientists have no right to opine upon matters scientific.

Thankfully, the field of science is at odds with Annie on that. They like the lay scientist and their input ... indeed, in Astronomy, they would be bereft without those lay star watchers.

I do believe that Darwin himself was a lay scientist. Therefore, according to Annie ... he had no business defining theories in science.

Of course we have a right to question or even challenge any kind of learning. But the business of scientific theory and hypothesis is empirical science, and those trained in their fields have been working on the problems for years and years, some for a lifetime.

There are independent science teams all over the world, and they compare data constantly. It's a process. Indeed, astronomers have benefited greatly from discoveries of lay star watchers, it's welcome!

But scientists have a specific way of doing things and arriving at conclusions. They are professionals, and those lay persons who casually post on the internet that one scientific theory or another "shouldn't be taught i schools because it isn't scientific" are voicing a personal opinion.

And to add a reply to part of FD's post above,

I have met so many people who think this way in real life. They always have an agenda. They are most often religious or they believe in creationism or intelligent design, which are not science.

Can you explain why you think macro evolution is science but these other theories are not? What distinction are you making?

Why I think macro evolution is science but the other "theories" of creationism and intelligent design are not is because there is no evidence for them whatsover.

Creationism and intelligent design suggest that a supernatural being or sentient omnipotent spirit or force caused reality to spring suddenly into being, just like that.

Well it appears that some 13.7 billion years ago space-time did in fact spring into being, just like that. But science goes on the assumption that what is observed in a natural universe is the result of natural cause and effect, and not because of some indefinable "supernatural" event.

As for longterm evolution of life on earth over the past 3 billion years, there are mountains of evidence, whereas for creationism or intelligent design there is none.

[freediver]

Leave scientists to define their theories as they will. Who are you, and who are the rest of us who are not scientists, to challenge what they do and how they work?

Who says I am trying to do that?

Of course we have a right to question or even challenge any kind of learning.

So what's with all the 'who are we to challenge' BS?

But scientists have a specific way of doing things and arriving at conclusions.

Do you have any idea what that is? On what basis do you claim to speak on their behalf?

They are professionals, and those lay persons who casually post on the internet that one scientific theory or another "shouldn't be taught i schools because it isn't scientific" are voicing a personal opinion.

Strawman. How many times do I need to explain that this is not what I said? Also, in what way is my opinion dangerous, as you claimed earlier?

Why I think macro evolution is science but the other "theories" of creationism and intelligent design are not is because there is no evidence for them whatsover.

There is plenty of evidence. It is the type of evidence that is significant.

Well it appears that some 13.7 billion years ago space-time did in fact spring into being, just like that. But science goes on the assumption that what is observed in a natural universe is the result of natural cause and effect, and not because of some indefinable "supernatural" event.

Can you explain the difference between a 'supernatural event' and 'springing into being, just like that'?

[annielaurie]

Can you explain the difference between a 'supernatural event' and 'springing into being, just like that'?

Singularities and gravity, as opposed to gods.

In particle physics, where there is nothing there will always be something. Space-time itself is something rather than nothingness. Gravity has something to do with this, not a supernatural being or event.

At the quantum level, infinitely tiny particles - singularities - have a way of popping in and out of existence continually.

Sooner or later one of them will stay in existence for longer than that instant, and suddenly inflate. Gravity has something to do with this. That is what they believe caused this universe to come into "being."

Science does not deal with God or gods or supernatural beings, in deals in particles and gravity.

[freediver]

Science does not deal with God or gods or supernatural beings, in deals in particles and gravity.

You mean like the God particle? Nothing magic there is there?