Is Evolution a Theory

>> Monday, July 26, 2010

Talk Origins website quotes: “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory”

A Scientific theory follows the following sequences:

1) Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.

How life came into existence ?

2) Collect information (data) about this phenomenon by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomenon by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.

It is impossible to do experimental laboratory tests on creating life. The evolutionist attempt to collect data about the evolutionary theory, but the evidence is always inconclusive and the evolutionist jumps to assumptions that are far fetch and hard to believe. The scientific community already has implanted biases that lead them to the wrong conclusions.

3) After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.

The evolutionists are looking for science that supports their view point, but when they uncover something that contradicts their view point they choose to ignore it. The theory of evolution might stop here and be called a hypothesis. That is about all they can claim.

4) Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data.

The evolutionists continue to ignore the statement “In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data”.

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

Stephen J. Gould, one of the intellectual fathers of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, admitted this in all clarity at a conference he gave at Hobart & William Smith College:
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionists are constantly ignoring data that contradicts their belief. Now, creationists have also claimed certain evidence based on their biases as well. However, creationist can admit it, but evolutionists do not.

The Lucy skeleton is still quoted as evidence for evolution even though it was totally disproved.
Lucy was just another partial find of some primate that was put together to look like some transitional form of human. The bones of Lucy were seperated by 200 feet by 1 mile. Maybe we should think that the seperation of Lucy's bones was due to a world wide flood.

It is interesting to note that the fossils are so scarce regarding human evolution that all the evidence can fit in a single coffin with room to spare.

5) If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.

Evolution hasn’t survived any of the attacks against it; they have just convinced people that their theory is sound because so many people do not want to anwer to a supreme being. People wanted another alternative to a belief in God so they made one up.

6) A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth. People claim that evolution is a fact, when no scientific theory is a fact.

You can have a lot of evidence to support something, but you don't say that it is 100% fact because all theories are subject to counter evidence that can disprove it. There is always some (perhaps infinitisemally small) chance in principle that an experiment will disprove it. I don’t know who is saying, “Evolution is just a theory”, because it doesn’t really classify as a theory at all. At best, it might be considered a hypothesis.

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. Intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature. " Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.


@bdul muHib August 13, 2009 at 9:14 AM  

Thank you. *Classic* examples of Literal Creationism distortions- and I mean classic literally. The quotes by Gould and Eldredge have been taken dramatically out of context, and they have repeatedly objected to these exact quotes being taken out of context. They are the originators of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Evolution, and thus it is in their interest to make these statements, which don't deny evolution, but rather argue that the speed of evolution is in jerks, and not steady. This is actually a very fun topic and a real controversy in biology and evolutionary science, with most saying that Gould and Eldredge contributed something, but their claims were too strong. Regardless, both were horrified to see themselves quoted so often out of context, to imply what they said was the exact opposite of what they said.

  © Blogger template Palm by 2008

Back to TOP