Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hafizsaad" data-source="post: 6057671" data-attributes="member: 153303">Step -2Let there be science :             Like I said, all to often proponents make it look as if anyone who disagrees with any part of biological evolution; is someone who disagrees with science itself. An often used argument is that evolution is just as much of a "theory" as gravity is. But how much weight does that argument carry? Well to avoid sweeping generalizations, let's consider the current status of these four parts:Abiogenesis : Hypothesis which is incomplete, not testable, not                    falsifiable and not provable.Micro evolution : Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.Macro evolution : Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and                           provable.  Common descent : Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not                            falsifiable and not provable.      ( People who feel I have made an error here and think that Abiogenesis and common descent are either testable, falsifiable or proven,.. Feel free to present your case on my <a href="http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/feedback.htm" target="_blank">forums</a>.)So my personal beliefs are that, several species were created metaphysically, and that those ones after that they were created all evolved trough physical laws into an even larger variety of creatures. I trust the scientific accuracy of the theory of micro and macro evolution, but I argue that they simply don't cut it to fill in common descent. As for abiogenesis, there are many scientific objections why that is unlikely as well. Now getting back to the comparison with denial of gravity, if it is directed to someone who denies the possibility of micro and macro evolution, then I agree completely. To deny them is in many ways similar to denying the theory of gravity. If however someone denies Abiogenesis and common descent -like I do- then the comparison is inapt. These two are not scientific theories, denying them does not go in against science. I will discuss in detail how many of the proposed falsifiability, testableness and proofs for each of those are flawed. For now I'll just respond to the reply I often get from those who feel forced to agree that these theories aren't scientific indeed. the reply is, that I'm simply compromising the parts that are proven into my views, and blindly deny those that are not proven yet. A witty reply, but another way to look at it is that the parts of biological evolution that could be considered as somewhat incompatible with religious doctrine are "coincidently" the same that are not proven! Both arguments however are emotive. From a rational perspective both parties would have to agree that the validness of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another, not even if they are in the same field or have overlapping parts. Each theory should be judged only on its own merits. Despite that all four theories are somehow related, proving that two of them are right, doesn't prove the other two right as well. Any scientists with respect for the concept and principles of a scientific methodology should acknowledge that.</blockquote>

Verification: Dawasata paya keeyak thibeda?

Top Bottom