Originally posted by Tarmac
Umm, no. Science is a method for testing and disproving theories. If the theory cannot be disproven then it is often regarded as fact. Science can never prove anything to be true, just disprove it. Evolution can't be proved, but it fails to be disproved, repeatedly - which is all science can do.
Um, no, I am afraid you are incorrect. For instance, mathematical "science" is used to both prove and disprove.
Let's put your idea of what science is to the test: I say there are giant massive purple polar bears at the center of the earth that use their magical powers to keep the earth spinning and everything from flying off of it. Now, disprove me. You can't? Then it must be true.
See, you have to understand scientific method in order to understand the why something is disproved, why something remains a theory and why something becomes what is called "law" in science.
For instance, Boyles Law, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of motion, etc, all started as ideas or hypothesis. Through test they were, and still are, consistently demonstrated to be true.
The Theory of Relativity, Evolutionary Theory, SuperString Theory, etc, remain unvalidated because we do not currently posses the means to validate them.
Argue all you want, but that is the way it is. Geez...evolutionist act all insulted when you remind them Evolution is a theory (and not even a monolithic one at that).
By the way, just for review, this is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
And, point of order, Darwin never observed "evolution" and neither has anyone else. He observed small adaptive differences within a species. Evolution, by definition, cannot be observed because it is biological changes over
time. Time being the keyword because generally, evolutionists talk in terms of geological ages (hundreds of thousands of year or more).
In short, since scientific method cannot be applied to evolution, it will remain "theory".
Get it? By the way, theory is not even really accurate. It is more accurate to continue to call it a hypothesis.
Of course, the typical evolutionist is so bigoted and close minded they will thoroughly reject this notion and cringe when they hear it. Sense, logic and science have no place when discussing evolution, after all.
Originally posted by Tarmac
Creationism, scientific creationism, or whatever you want to call it, cannot be disproved because its main premise relies on supernatural processes that cannot be reproduced by man. It's not science, it's faith, and has no place in a science classroom.
According to your notion of what science is, the lack of ability to disprove it (whether natural, supernatural or massive purple polar bears) would class it as science. You can't change your logic and rules in midstream. Why, that would make you seem inconsistent and call into questions to very foundation of any idea you subscribe.
However, intelligent design, while observable, cannot be ultimately proven. There is a point where, based on evidence (or in the case of evolution, the lack of it) that you have to take the next logical step. Based on your established position, evolution would have no place in the classroom either.
Anyway, like I said before, it would fall on deaf ears and it did. Hey, there's at least one theory that has been proven.
