The minimum requirements for being
a science was given in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1981. Judge Overton
found that science has four essential features:
It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory
by references to natural laws.
Science is testable against the empirical world.
Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.
It is falsifiable
But for Evolution(macro evolution, chemical
evolution, organic evolution ) with exceptional of micro-evolution) is:
- It is not testable against the
empirical world.
- It is not falsifiable
So it is not Science.
Also Evolution(except
micro evolution) is not scientific theory because it is still unsubstantiated hypothesis
or idea. Despite they call it "Evolution Theory" but
that in the common usage of the word "theory" by puplic which refers
to ideas that is just a vague and fuzzy and have no firm proof or support. But
it is not scientific theory. In science, theory means a well-substantiated
explanation of data. satisfies most if not all of the theory conditions: [ see here]:
It is not logically
"OR" Empirically tested
It is not predict anything
It doesn't provide retrodictions that are testable.
Its results can not be reproduced so it is
impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result
of error or fraud).
It is not falsifiable so is impossible
to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via
experimentation. & Falsifiable
So it is not a scientific theory.
| Falsifiable= Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or
corrupted[Definitions from The Online Plain Text English Dictionary:] falsifiable
means that cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For
example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up.
When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus
it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable
|
Many
evolutionists offer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science)
as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics
(operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major
reason that Mendel’s pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years
(Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous
unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of
reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the
neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc.
So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to
accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate
almost any conceivable observation[ from "It’s not science’" by Don
Batten in Answers in Genesis] |
|