True. I just re-read his site.mantra wrote: FD didn't say the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools only that it shouldn't be taught in science class.
Haha. We're going around in circles.Super Nova wrote: True. I just re-read his site.
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.
We can predict the weather. We cannot predict beneficial mutations. That is why the distinction between natural selection and evolution matches so nicely the boundary between science and non-science.The issue here FD is we can not accurately defint the initial conditions just like we cannot model the exact engery level, position an direction of every molecule in the atmosphere to predict weather. We cannot model the output of the sun and every ray of energy that hits the planet. We cannot model such complexities.
So we can predict things will happen but we cannot predict when and what in absolute detail.
That is chimerism, not the generation of new genetic information. It is really just a more elaborate type of sex.I can when you consider that man via genetic engineering is under controlled conditions generating mutations. They have to be seen as predictable. These mutation, particularly ones for resistence to pests would be seen as beneficial just man made. They are now in the ecosystem to the horror of some.
You are muddling the meaning of falsifiability here. A simpler way of putting it is, can you design a repeatable litmus test for universal common ancestry?I don't think I can. Probably because it is not wrong.
The bits about experiments, predictive force, falsifiable predictions, etc.What part of this is not met?
No. I am saying that evolution is not a scientific theory.FD is saying that a blind belief in science is wrong.
Elements of evolution are continually challenged and refined however the macroscopic view, the theory of evolution itself, has stood the test of time.
Can you explain this? Are you suggesting that the existence of God and unicorns are scientific hypotheses? Can you explain how you would apply the scientific method in this context?There has been numerous scientific enquiries into god and the supernatiural.
How so?FD's arguments are similar to those presented by creationists.
This professor lives in Kentucky, a state that is still fighting a 1920's battle."The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he (Vincent Cassone) said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."
Excellent. Here is his department's site with lots of papers to support evolution and their current research.AiA in Atlanta wrote:Came across this today and thought of this thread:
This professor lives in Kentucky, a state that is still fighting a 1920's battle."The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he (Vincent Cassone) said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."
Perhaps that is why he sounds more like someone propping up one side of a propaganda war rather than a philosopher or scientist.This professor lives in Kentucky, a state that is still fighting a 1920's battle.
Really?We can predict the weather.
What is a philosopher if nothing else but someone who justifies propping up one side of an argument or propaganda warPerhaps that is why he sounds more like someone propping up one side of a propaganda war rather than a philosopher
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests