Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Super Nova]

Evolution is real.

This graphic proves the theory.

[Super Nova]

Well just to open the pandora's box... what do you think of this:

...no scientific theory is self-verifying.

Royal astronomer Martin Rees expressed it as follows in his book *Just Six Numbers*:

"Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what 'breathes fire' into the equations, and actualizes them in a real cosmos."

What Rees is indicating, whether he knows it or not, is two important philosophical distinctions: between *essence* (fundamental equations) and *existence* (actualized in a real cosmos); and between *contingent being* and *necessary being*. The fact that we cannot move directly from essence (theory) to existence (reality) without sufficient evidence indicates the contingency of the physical universe. Its existence is not self-explanatory. Its existence is not necessary.

Of course there have been various claims made which seek to bypass this contingency: theories of the multiverse, which are unverifiable in principle; and the recent work by Lawrence Krauss, *A Universe from Nothing*, which if nothing else proved that Krauss is no philosopher. Clearly some scientists are unsettled by the sheer contingency of existence and bridle against the fact that the universe is not self-explanatory. And, of course, it is repulsive to intelligence that while everything else is subject to explanation, existence itself has no explanation.

[freediver]

If you didn't add this statement then perhaps you need to clarify your argument better than you have been. Your position is not clear

To clarify, saying it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as science is not the same as saying that it should not be taught. Natural selection covers 90% of it anyway.

Why do you not argue as strongly about the science of climate change?

I am more interested in the economics.

All? Inevitably?
What was that about misrepresentation?

It is not misrepresentation. Try coming up with one scientific theory that you think will never be disproven. Evolution might be the only one, which should tell you something about evolution.

I want to know what your motive is

Truth. What is your motive? Do you think I must have a sinister motive? Is this what you meant when you insisted I did not answer your question - that you suspect my motives but have no idea?

FD, SN & IQ have no idea what a scientific Law is.
Boyles Law—describes the relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas. You try it out, it works. Doesn’t explain, doesn’t predict based on some theory, just describes what happens.

A scientific law is merely a theory that has been more broadly accepted. Boyles law does predict what happens, in a way that evolution does not.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, derived from and restating Kepler’s work again gives no theory of why and how gravity works. It just states two bodies exert force on one another.

It is a theory and does predict what happens. It does not have to get into the philosophical 'why' to be a theory. By the way, it also happens to be wrong - another example of science's power being linked to being proven wrong.

Evolution is more a Law yet proffers natural selection as a mechanism. It just can’t be tested: science tests predictions not past events. So the Theory of Evolution is not phrased as a scientifc theory.

It is by many of it's proponents in the culture wars.

The distinction you are attempting to make between scientific law and scientific theory is wrong.

It is not absolute but for the purposes of application on thuis planet a good estimate of the relations.

Is that your way of saying it is wrong?

how can it be a real law of the universe when it is not 100% accurate at all times

Neither is relativity. It is just the currently accepted version.

It can be tested. Fast breeding flies have been used to test out evolution for years.

They have been used to experimentally test the theory of natural selection - hence why it is scientific.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features – unity, fecundity, and independent testability of auxiliary hypotheses:

IQ can you elaborate on what the author meant by independent testability? Can you explain how it distinguishes science from maths, history, the arts etc?

We've got records going back millions of years to show reasonable proof that evolution exists - but we haven't for global warming.

Yes we do mantra. Just because you are impervious to it does not mean it does not exist.

Global warming shouldn't be law because at the moment it's a theory and people want to test it.

Global warming is a lot of different concepts thrown together. In that respect it is similar to evolution, just more amorphous.

Just thought I'd inject a little science into this and remind the readers that Carbon is not a pollutant.

That is a statement of values, not science.

It describes the relationship - yes - at normal earth like temperatures

It has nothing to do with whether the temperatures are 'earth like'. It is about the temperature relative to the critical point. For some fluids this is well below, and for some this is well above 'earth like' temperatures. For air it works at earth like temperatures, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

As FD has answered neither of these questions, despite numerous requests to do so, we must speculate as to the reasons for his/her reticence.

Swami, I answered in the very next post. Not agreeing with my answer does not mean it does not exist.

Now watch freeloader ignore this thread while he crosses his arms and hurumphs to himself that he has explained his point of view and it's everyone else's problem if they are unable to decipher his motive

You only had to ask IQ. If you were asking about my motives rather than my beliefs you should have said so.

"Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what 'breathes fire' into the equations, and actualizes them in a real cosmos."

I think this is the bit Monk is confused about. He equates theory with the fire breathing.

[IQ popping]

I am more interested in the economics.

So implementing on society an parable economic theory on a equally dodgy global warming theory thus changing our entire economy is ok with you

But you rail that evolutionary theory should be thrown out of the science class because you don't believe it should be classed as a science?

Do you see your hypocrisy or are you blind to it?

[freediver]

No-one is going to die because evolution is not a scientific theory.

[IQ PSing]

Evolutionary theory hasn't forced the population into tithing to appease the Gaiaist and an invented problem

No-one is going to die because evolution is not a scientific theory.

So your cult and fearmongering outweighs your hypocrisy

[IQ popping]

No-one is going to die because evolution is not a scientific theory.

Lots of people might die because your economic theory coupled to the global warming theory is wrong

[IQS.RLOW]

The Precautionary Principle suggests we should not inhibit economic activity in the world's economy to avoid an unexplained phenomenon. Inhibiting the activity may or may not affect the unexplained phenomenon (AGW), however, it will certainly affect the lives of billions of inhabitants of the planet in a negative way. Slowing the growth of the world economy will hurt citizens in the pocketbook and stress level. A few more people will die in the developed world. Around the world, many more wars, genocides, droughts, famines, epidemics, and political upheavels will go unaddressed by the de facto world policeman. Many will die.

[freediver]

IQ you appear to be retreating back to the safety of familiar territory. Have you given up trying to tell me what my real motive is?

[IQS.RLOW]

IQ you appear to be retreating back to the safety of familiar territory. Have you given up trying to tell me what my real motive is?

No, I'm still waiting for you to reveal it. You can't be all about truth in science on one theory and ignore it on another

Highlighting your hypocrisy is a never ending task