quote:
Originally posted by oli_uk:
unless evolution can be 100% proven it is not science, nor is creation. both can be correctly known as science or both as a relgion, what ever 'floats ur boat'.
Evolution
And no that isn't how it works. The way science works is (simplistically put) something like this:
A. An event is observed (or implied).
B. A Hypothesis is devised to explain the event
C. This is tested to see if it conforms with the available data.
If the hypothesis conforms it is accepted as probably correct and becomes a Theory. If it doesn't (no matter how nice it sounds) it is discarded and B and C are repeated. Likewise a Theory will be discarded if new data is found which invalidates it.
The term "Theory" in Science usage is not the same as you or I in everday language saying I've got a theory (hunch, idea, etc.) about that. Rather it is a Fact based on empirical testing of data. (See a dictionary for a description)
Religion is a subset of philosophy it is based purely on belief - it is nothing more than a fanciful idea which cannot be proven. If you want to believe in it fine but please don't lie by saying it is the same as Scientific Theory.
Specifically the Theory of Evolution matches all data and stands up to the critical evaluation it is constantly under. Creationism is merely an attempt by the religious to lever their doctrine into the education system by kidding on it is some sort of Science.
Here's some questions Oli:
1. Has Science ever been forced to change its facts to conform with religious doctrine.
YES/NO
2. Has Religion ever been forced to change its facts to conform with Scientific discovery.
YES/NO
Heck the guys who came up with Intelligent Design showed their own stupidity when they (falsely) claimed evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). They later realised that this false interpretation also precluded their own creationist model so they came up with this stroke of genius:
:
"But during the period of Creation, God was introducing order and organization into the universe in a very high degree, even to life itself! It is thus quite plain that the processes used by God in creation were utterly different from the processes which now operate in the universe!"
The Genesis Flood, page 223
(Whitcomb and Morris)
(Apart from being a false premise) Yes, it is "quite plain", if all else fails invoke the supernatural - After all no-one can test this to prove you wrong.
Plonkers
Honestly Oli try using your single brain cell for more than surfing the creationist sites.
