Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

Totally falsifiable. Totally scientific.

Can you explain how you would go about attempting to falsify it?

Genius, given some of the nutbag theories that were acceptable before

Again, not relevant.

Is there not a less confusing, more readily relevant term?

No. The meaning of the term is important. The different (more familiar) meanings that some of these terms have in a non-scientific context makes communication more difficult.

[IQS.RLOW]

Have you started protesting and blogging at any sites that mention Climate 'science' yet?

[Jovial Monk]

IQ doesn’t get it.

We are not saying evolution isn’t true—genetics, for instance, shows the mechanism by which evolution work. Just that Darwin’s theory is not scientific.

Because if it is the fit that survive, breed and pass on their survival traits then those that survive are by definition the fittest. Circular reasoning you see.

[annielaurie]

But the understanding of the mechanisms have come a long way since Darwin's time.

The observations as evidence and the methods to test them have advanced to the point where it has become the most important hypothesis to explain the diversity in nature we see today.

Of course it is a "scientific" theory. What else would you call it?

[Jovial Monk]

Because in the jargon of science Darwin’s theory is not falsifiable (because of the circular definition I explained above) tho only idiots don’t believe in evolution.

Science does not look to prove theories, it looks to disprove, to falsify, theories in the quest for better explanations of natural processes.

[boxy]

Totally falsifiable. Totally scientific.

Can you explain how you would go about attempting to falsify it?

Do a statistical study into the heritability of physical traits. According to Evo by NS, physical traits of the parents should be passed on to the offspring at higher rates than by chance. If they arn't, the theory is falsified.

[Jovial Monk]

But that doesn’t prove or disprove Darwin’s theory since any survivors are assumed to be the fittest to survive.

[freediver]

But the understanding of the mechanisms have come a long way since Darwin's time.

That doesn't change the basics of whether it is scientific.

Of course it is a "scientific" theory.

Is that the extent of your argument?

What else would you call it?

Evolution seems like a good term to use.

Do a statistical study into the heritability of physical traits. According to Evo by NS, physical traits of the parents should be passed on to the offspring at higher rates than by chance. If they arn't, the theory is falsified.

This is a good example of a scientific investigation into natural selection. It would not mean that evolution is a scientific theory.

[annielaurie]

But the understanding of the mechanisms have come a long way since Darwin's time

That doesn't change the basics of whether it is scientific.

Of course it is a "scientific" theory.

Is that the extent of your argument?

What else would you call it?

Evolution seems like a good term to use.

How about this? It's a scientific theory because scientists say it is. To argue otherwise would be to take on the entire worldwide science community.

Are you a scientist? Have you actually studied it yourself? Can you do the math yourself? Can you do the experiments, can you go out and collect the evidence of archeologists and geologists yourself? Have you dug up the skeletons and performed the carbon testing yourself?

If not, this is your opinion alone. Show evidence that it is not a scientific theory. Show us that it is only history and not science. If you can't, then scientists around the world are laughing at you.

The reason it hasn't been falsified up to this point is because it is obviously true. Nobody has been able to show evidence so far that would blow the theory to smithereens.

[Jovial Monk]

Scientists say that Darwin’s theory is not scientific, not falsifiable. Doesn’t mean they don’t think the theory isn’t correct.