Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

That frame of thought is a very recent introduction by God botherers trying to discredit the theory without offering a hypothesis or refutation of their own.

Who else have you seen promoting it?

Simply saying 'it is untestable' shows you are either ignorant to the many studies and sciences that have been verified to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the TOE is the only and best accepted answer available.

I am saying it is not falsifiable, from a scientific perspective.

therefore you are saying it should not be a science but a philosophy

No. I have already explained what I think it is.

[IQS.RLOW]

That frame of thought is a very recent introduction by God botherers trying to discredit the theory without offering a hypothesis or refutation of their own.

Who else have you seen promoting it?
You

Simply saying 'it is untestable' shows you are either ignorant to the many studies and sciences that have been verified to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the TOE is the only and best accepted answer available.

I am saying it is not falsifiable, from a scientific perspective.
It doesn't need to be. Falsifiability is not the only measure of science and to think otherwise you would have to discount a plethora of other sciences as 'not scientific' based on your narrow viewpoint.

therefore you are saying it should not be a science but a philosophy

No. I have already explained what I think it is.

No, you haven't. You have skirted and slithered all over the place

[IQS.RLOW]

I am still waiting for you to explain your motive in 'philosophizing' an accepted scientific theory.

Perhaps it is because your chosen field is so completely rubbery that you feel the need to have some of the harder-to-test hard sciences join you on the outer fringes of the arts to give you some legitimacy?

Do you consider economics an art or a science?
If you do consider it an art, do you think it is more inclined to science than say philosophy?

[IQS.RLOW]

Back to figuring out your motive

I am saying it is not falsifiable, from a scientific perspective.

Why do you champion Popper on one theory (evolution) but completely ignore on the other (AGW)?

[freediver]

You

Am I the only one?

Falsifiability is not the only measure of science

It is a requirement for a theory to be considered scientific.

and to think otherwise you would have to discount a plethora of other sciences as 'not scientific' based on your narrow viewpoint

Can you give any examples?

Do you consider economics an art or a science?

It is unethical to do proper experiments in economics, plus there is a lot of group psychology involved in macroeconomics. So you have to look for the equivalent of natural experiments. It is a big barrier and part of the reason why economics is such a controversial subject. That being said, you have drawn a false dichotomy between art and science. Economics as a field of study makes heavy use of maths and psychology and uses the tools of historians as well as the scientific method where possible. Before you say I didn't answer your question, you are right, and you would have a hard time getting a straight answer out of an economist too, because of the wide range of methods they have to use. But it is good that you asked the question, because it shows that you are thinking about what science really is.

Why do you champion Popper on one theory (evolution) but completely ignore on the other (AGW)?

I am not ignoring it and have already discussed it in this thread with mantra.

[IQS.RLOW]

You

Am I the only one?
Yes

Falsifiability is not the only measure of science

It is a requirement for a theory to be considered scientific.
Only if you are Popper...and you are not

and to think otherwise you would have to discount a plethora of other sciences as 'not scientific' based on your narrow viewpoint

Can you give any examples?
Atomic theory
Information theory
There are many that wouldn't fit into your narrow viewpoint as not scientific

Do you consider economics an art or a science?

It is unethical to do proper experiments in economics, plus there is a lot of group psychology involved in macroeconomics. So you have to look for the equivalent of natural experiments. It is a big barrier and part of the reason why economics is such a controversial subject. That being said, you have drawn a false dichotomy between art and science. Economics as a field of study makes heavy use of maths and psychology and uses the tools of historians as well as the scientific method where possible. Before you say I didn't answer your question, you are right, and you would have a hard time getting a straight answer out of an economist too, because of the wide range of methods they have to use. But it is good that you asked the question, because it shows that you are thinking about what science really is.
I know what science really is. I'm trying to get you to think outside of your Popper zone

Why do you champion Popper on one theory (evolution) but completely ignore on the other (AGW)?

I am not ignoring it and have already discussed it in this thread with mantra.

No, you haven't. I asked you this before and you answered that you were more interested in the economics rather than the philosophic.

How do you reconcile the economic argument when philosophically you shouldn't be able to apply it

[IQS.RLOW]

As an example, would atomic theory have advanced as far as it has done had it been pidgeon holed as a non-scientific field of study based on your narrow description?

After all, when atomic theory was first conceived it wasn't falsifiable

[Dumber than dumb]

That The Origin of Species is not a scientific theory has been around a long time, long before creationism/intelligent design movement.

It cannot be falsified.

[Super Nova]

That The Origin of Species is not a scientific theory has been around a long time, long before creationism/intelligent design movement.

It cannot be falsified.

Bollocks. Has this site attracted creationism trolls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species

On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, while science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to other animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.

The book was written for non-specialist readers and attracted widespread interest upon its publication. As Darwin was an eminent scientist, his findings were taken seriously and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X Club to secularise science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred, but scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate. During the "eclipse of Darwinism" from the 1880s to the 1930s, various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s, Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, now the unifying concept of the life sciences

[Super Nova]

Looks to me you guys don't do your homework.

The creator of "Falsifiability" Karl R. Popper was clear that Darwinism is a theory and is Falsifiable... read this or read the full link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E ... ontroversy

Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[86] However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".[87]

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping",[88] opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.[89] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."[90]

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[91] However, creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be.[92]

In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[93] Only a few years later, Popper wrote, "I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological' ... I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation." His conclusion, later in the article is "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true."[94]

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[95] However, simple falsifiability tests for common descent have been offered by some scientists: For instance, biologist and prominent critic of creationism Richard Dawkins and J.B.S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water."[96][97]

Falsifiability has caused problems for creationists: In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of Creation Science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science".[98]