There is no weasel wording going on. I came right out and said that if someone claims that evolution has been proven, they are being dishonest. How is that using weasel wording? Besides, if I am incorrect in making that accusation, then please explain why instead of just babbling on that I am incorrect.
You are claiming
that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven. However, science is not about proving things to begin with; it is about demonstrating things using evidence. A lot of people use the concept of proof as a shortcut for this, but that's nothing more than linguistic sloppiness. I am providing a link to a good article which debunks the misconception that science has anything to do with proof.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
I will let the article speak for itself, but I want to elaborate on one specific point: "all scientific knowledge is tentative
, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives
." This exactly describes the theory of evolution; it is the best explanation that we have for the diversity of life. Trying to claim that since evolutionary theory is not 'proven', it is not scientific, is plain and simply wrong. It is based off the false idea that something must be proven to be scientific. When I accused you of weasel-wording, that's what I meant; however, I since looked up the definition of weasel-wording, and that isn't it. Weasel-wording is a way to imply something without coming right out and saying it, and I have to admit you weren't doing that.
Yes. Perhaps some people are getting pissed off. What I am exposing in this thread is a tough pill to swallow for those that have to admit that certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific.
Except you are incorrect, because your premise is that something must be proven in order to be scientific (thus why you are asking for a "soup-to-humans" proof). However, science does not work through proof, it works through evidence. Therefore, your claim that "certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific" is unsupported, because you are basing it off of the concept of proof, which is itself not scientific to begin with
. The point is that "macro-evolution", one of those aspects of evolutionary theory that you are referring to, is indeed scientific, for the reason that it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life (even though the evidence for it is far from complete), whereas trying to explain the diversity of life as being due to a designer has very little actual evidence going for it.
That is a completely cop out. Instead of explaining why I am incorrect or ignorant, an honest and genuine effort to respond to the specific claims and questions I have posed in this thread? You seem far more interested in discrediting me than you do in actually arguing the points I am making.And, these accusations some of you make about the level of knowledge and intellect a theist allegedly lacks are some of the most lame and stupid accusations made. They are an obvious tactic to smear the poster with the intent a being to dodge the topic(s).
I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that by demanding that people here must 'prove' macro-evolution by providing a "soup-to-humans" chain or else admit that it's 'unscientific' shows only two things; that you don't really understand the science involved, and that you're not interested in trying to. If you understood the science involved, you wouldn't be asking for proof, you'd be asking for evidence, and you wouldn't be demanding a level of evidence that is so purely arbitrary as to be ridiculous
. If you were interested in trying to understand it, you wouldn't be trying to draw a line in the sand like you are
Where in this thread have I said that macroevolution is false?
It's statements like this that lead me to conclude that you're using weasel-wording; the implication of fixating so much on proof is that if it is not proven, then it is not true and therefore false, but you are carefully avoiding saying that so that you can deny it if someone challenges you on it. That is the definition of weasel-wording, and I suggest you avoid the appearance of it in the future.
I am simply challenging any assertion that evolution is proven or that the entirety of the ToE is 'scientific' in nature.
Except these two things have nothing to do with each other. Science is not about proving things in the first place, and nothing in science is proven; indeed, nothing in science can be proven. As for the theory of evolution (or portions of it) not being scientific, since your basis for this was that it wasn't 'proven', and the concept of proof is itself not scientific, you must come up with a different rationale if you wish to argue that it is not scientific.
By what means or criteria does macroevolution become 'scientific? Is it by consensus? Is it because Joe "the ToE" Evolution says so? By what authority can someone claim the entirety of the ToE is scientific?
Why didn't you simply ask this to begin with, rather than roaring into the topic and claiming that macro-evolution wasn't proven and therefore not scientific? Science isn't about authority, nor is it about consensus. It's about evidence. The reason the theory of evolution - and I mean the whole theory, not the highly artificial distinction between micro and macro that you're focused on - is scientific is because it is extremely well supported by the evidence we've found from examining the natural world. There isn't anything else that even comes close to its explanatory power; it's so strong of an explanation that even finding evidence of a designer wouldn't counter it.
In every single simulation of evolution ever made, the initial simulated organism is designed
. A human programmer made it for the simulation, not to mention that the simulation itself was designed. And yet, it has no problems whatsoever with dramatic divergences from its initial parameters, to the point where it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original designed organism; macro-evolutionary changes, in other words. In short, there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that just because something was originally designed, that it somehow could not have "macro-evolved". Indeed, people have actually written programs which demonstrated that something designed would still be able to change at the macro level, such as Macrophylon
. Indeed, you should note that the Macrophylon program was written specifically to address macro changes, rather than micro, such as major changes in size or respiration.
WHAT??!!!! You mean there is a different scientific method? Is it a secret method...one that only scientists researching the ToE use? I have never heard this before so please do enlighten me....or provide a link to a credible source for this 'other' method.
I am not impressed with your attempt to be disingenuous. I did not say that they used a different scientific method, I said it was a common misunderstanding of the scientific method that was at fault. Specifically, the idea that scientific methodology has anything to do with proof. It does not; it has to do with evidence. The scientific method does not prove anything; you cannot prove that something is true or false using it. All you can do is demonstrate that your hypothesis or theory matches the evidence, and that it does so better than other explanations.
So, this whole business about testing and experimenting to verify the accuracy of a hypothesis is a bunch a nonsense? According to you, basically all you have to do is demonstrate that other hypotheses don't trump the one being studied. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were making this stuff up in a desperate attempt to somehow demonstrate a scientific basis for some of the claims being made because now there is a variation or different scientific method that can be used when the other one(s) don't provide the outcome that is needed. Interesting and,frankly, unbelievable. I have heard or read somewhere that people who are completely sold on the ToE will make things up as they go along in order to protect it and now I think I am seeing first-hand that that may be true.
Your inability (or perhaps unwillingness would be a better term) to understand only reflects on you. Especially your continued attempt to misconstrue my earlier statement as some kind of "alternate scientific method" that is used to support evolution. There is no alternate scientific method. However, it is certainly possible for people who are not very knowledgeable about it to misunderstand it (especially since it's common to understand proof and evidence as meaning the same thing) and thus assume that the scientific method is about proving things, when it has nothing to do with that. People such as you, as you have clearly demonstrated through this thread, and are further demonstrating by continuing to misunderstand and misconstrue things.
You just admitted that all claims of soup-to-humans is unscientific. There is no known pathway and no known mechanism so you are left with a form of deduction based on observation which cannot be supported by the scientific method. In effect, you are ASSUMING it to be true. That is not a scientific basis for anything !!!!
If it weren't for the fact that I'm aware of how fundamentally you're misunderstanding the scientific method and evidence vs proof, I would be quite offended at the insinuations you make here. I'm hoping that my post will help to clear this up, but I'm not able to hold out much hope for that due to how much you've stuck to the false idea of "scientific proof" since you came into this topic.
As it happens, science is indeed about seeing how closely a proposed explanation fits the facts; it is either inductive (meaning, you start with an observation/hypothesis and then try to work up to a more general theory) or deductive (meaning, you start with a general theory and work down to the specifics), as described here
. Inductive reasoning is usually how we come up with theories, and then we use deductive reasoning to test them Every branch of science works that way. It's more than a bit ironic that you described exactly how science and the scientific method works, and then immediately claimed that it couldn't be supported by the scientific method and that it wasn't a scientific basis for anything.
I never said it was wrong !!! I said it was unscientific. In fact, I've said it repeatedly in this thread and am yet to receive a response either demonstrating that it is or explaining why my position is false.
It is anything but unscientific. The only reason you think it is unscientific is because you think science is about proof, when it never has been.
So, it is a GUESS then?? If this is a valid scientific method you just described then you just opened a can of whoop-ass for some of the creationist and IDT crowd to use. Can you even imagine the ridicule and criticism they would be subjected to if they used your nonsensical version of how science works. Yikes !!!
Actually, the creationist/"intelligent design" crowd regularly make insinuations to that effect all the time, but they're making the same mistake as you did - seeing a word and jumping to conclusions. You see, I said it was an educated
guess - that is, based on knowledge and experience and thus likely to be correct. And that is, in fact, the point. Science always starts with educated guesses (otherwise known as hypotheses), which are either confirmed or falsified. If they're falsified, then it's time for another hypothesis. If they're confirmed (and more importantly, continue to be confirmed), they progressively become more likely to be correct. But the point is that there is no stage at which a scientific theory is 100% certain to be correct.
And the even further irony is that this is actually how science works, and thus the only way creationism/"intelligent design theory" could possibly be taken seriously as science. Instead, their advocates fixate on the idea of "disproving" elements of science which contradict what they want to be true, as if that would somehow make those things true.