Theory of Evolution as well tested as…

_{March 1, 2007

Humor}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We often hear biologists claim the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

What we don’t often hear is physicists claim the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.

Click here to learn why. 😆

Comments

Interscience prestige war -- Lord Ernest Rutherford said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." This apparently gave biologists an inferiority complex, so they decided to come up with something that physics doesn't have: a grand supreme overarching unifying "theory of everything," Darwinism. Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." But many of the "predictions" that Darwinism makes are not predictions at all but are just serendipitous findings that observations are consistent with the theory. Scientific papers pay lip service to Darwinism where Darwinism did not guide the research. And Jonathan Wells' book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" accuses Darwinists of "intellectual larceny," saying that they hijacked credit for scientific discoveries to which they contributed nothing.Larry Fafarman_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

jmcd: I think the whole gravity/evolution issue is only apllicable to evolution vs. creationism debate and not applicable at all to the TOE/ID debate. Why is that? Creationists agree that evolution occurs. They just disagree as to the extent the evolutionary process can change a population. IOW Creationists hang their hat on the observable and testable data.Joseph_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

I think the comparison is reasonable only from the perspective that evolution hapenned just as certainly as gravity exists. It's not reasonable from that perspective either. Evolution is undemonstrable today except in trivial cases. Gravity is demonstrable today in all but the most extreme cases. We don't know that evolution happened, we presume it did. We make no such presumption about gravity, we know it really works just as described.DaveScot_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

I agree Dave. I am just trying to be a bit of the devil's advocate here. I think the comparison is reasonable only from the perspective that evolution hapenned just as certainly as gravity exists. Our knowledge of how evolution happenned is light years from the precision with which we can measure the effects of gravity. I think the whole gravity/evolution issue is only apllicable to evolution vs. creationism debate and not applicable at all to the TOE/ID debate.jmcd_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

jmcd Gravity is a predictable property of matter. The predictions can be tested down to many decimal points of accuracy and except in the extremes have never been found wanting. Evolution is not a predictable property of living things. Except in trivial cases we can't predict when evolution will happen, in what measure it will happen, or in what form. Or even if it will happen at all. Comparing evolution to gravity is ridiculous. It's an insult to hard sciences.DaveScot_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

jmcd, Nah. Evolutionists like to hide behind that "virtual certainty" crapola so they can skirt the real issue: if life evolves, does it do so blindly and wholly randomly, or is there another possibility, such as in some guided manner like the theistic evolutionists imagine? In other words, do we even consider design as a possibility? Neo-Darwinian evolution tries to win the argument by sleight of hand. It looks at the fossil record, which supports only the evolutionary hypothesis, and which is substantial negative evidence against evolutionary theory, places both hypothesis and theory under the general rubric of "evolution," declares evolution a "virtual certainty," and once heads nod in agreement, announces, "oh by the way, science has to be naturalistic, so all you theistic evolutionists need to keep your mouths shut." And this is called "free scientific inquiry."TerryL_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

February 26 - March 1, 2007 Ref21 has “The Westminster Confession of Faith Today“ Doug Wilson wonders where Richard Dawkins thinks reason comes from. John MacArthur has a great overview of the doctrine of election. Phil Johnson has an excellent post on evangelistic s...THE SEARCH FOR PURPOSE_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

jmcd, If you accept the neo-Darwinist definition of evolution (change in the allele frequency in a population over time) which I think is valid for every discussion, then we do understand a lot of things about how organisms change. But these changes are only applicable to micro evolution and nearly all are trivial. They are not relevant to the real debate which is over how major macro changes happened.jerry_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

I think you can say that the fact that life has evolved is a virtual certainty. We also arguably understand a bit more about why life evolves than why gravity exists.jmcd_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

"...the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution." If you printed the above quote on a T-shirt and walk around with it at a conference of distinguished physicists, I wonder what the reaction would be.russ_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply