[_ Old Earth _] Is evolution really science?

[Dave Slayer]

Is evolution really science?

 

[Sparkey]

"Duh, Dave."

<Oh, please consider this the default answer for your future threads too.> Efficiency. Yes, that's the ticket.

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

Is evolution really science?

What is your definition of 'science'? What do you think? Do you have any opinion at all? If yes, why; if no, why not?

 

[kenmaynard]

Is evolution really science?

What is your definition of 'science'? What do you think? Do you have any opinion at all? If yes, why; if no, why not?

Why would have their own definition of a word? Lets just use the definition we are all familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Evolution sure seems like science to me.

 

[VenomFangX]

Evolution is science as it uses scientific methodology; the technology is also in use today to create vaccines and so on. Out of all the theories evolution seems to have more evidence than any other supporting it. However, like any scientific theory, there will be anomalies from time to time which do not disprove a theory but leads to a greater understanding and enhancement of knowledge.
VFX

 

[Sparkey]

Per kenmaynard's Wiki reference, "Science" "refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method."

Following a link in that same article shows the Merriam-Webster definition for the scientific method:

* scientific method
* Function: noun
* Date: circa 1810

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Observation is a primary component of the scientific method, hence indispensable to science. The theory of evolution is not directly observable. It is not (as currently stated) able to be "tested" because any test, in order to be valid, must be designed such that the subject of the test can either be proven or disproven. To the best of my knowledge, the theory of Evolution (as currently stated and held) can not be disproved.

Take the SCIENTIFIC METHOD QUIZ ----> HERE <----

• [list:2wl2zrk3]Correct!
  
  You answered 10 items out of 10 correctly.
  
  Your score is 100%. Excellent job! You know your stuff!

[/list:u:2wl2zrk3]

But, and again, to answer the question brought by the topic, any well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world can properly be considered a part of what we know as "science".

 

[VenomFangX]

The methodology you mentioned is used by many high school students and first year graduates, it was also expounded by Carl Popper the scientific philosopher., who worked at Canterbury University.
When things do not fit into a test tube or are not observable in our time it clear other methods of analysis are needed, which involves statistical analysis and correlations with known events. When you extrapolate there is a source of error until better evidence is found, but the greatest methodology of science is its impartiality, peer review and correlating evidence which can lead to only one conclusion.

the test can either be proven or disproven

this is incorrect writer as nothing in science is proven or disproven: the hypothesis is only supported by evidence and statistical analysis in most cases, and if not then perhaps the null hypothesis (the contrary) could have support. In effect nothing is proved at all, but only supported by the evidence.
If this is indeed the case then another experimental design needs to be set up for testing. Evolution is directly observable actually, especially in micro organisms, and there is no missing link between ape and man: we are apes. Get over it: this is Gods creation not your thoughts.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Sparkey]

greatest methodology ... peer review and correlating evidence which can lead to only one conclusion.

ORLY?

There is no room for any disagreement in your science then. Well now.

 

[Barbarian]

He's right about science proving nothing. Proof is possible only when we know all the rules. Mathematics allows proof, because we define the rules. In science, we look at evidence and try to figure out what the rules are.

He's also right about peer review leading to the correct answers. Infallible? No. Better than anything else we can do? Yes.

 

[Sparkey]

Hey Barbarian!

Welcome! Can you help me resolve the problem that I'm having maybe? I do understand that peer review is a more reliable method but can't get behind the whole "there is only one conclusion" thing. Here's somebody who said it better about being able to falsify:

Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk[/email]]

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is
that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some
experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.
For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about
the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced
results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is)
falsifiable.

On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading
this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment
or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not
exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand,
the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is
scientific. You can disprove it by catching one.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[VenomFangX]

There is no room for any disagreement in your science then. Well now.

Of course there is room for disagreement, this is how we operate in mutual discussion so new ideas can come out of the darkness. If we disagree on a few things that is fine. But lets give it our best shot to say what is the best way to go.
I am a little tired now Sparrow to reply to your latest post, but forums like this are like an unofficial peer review. You ask the right questions and appear to be a genuine sincere person: I appreciate your responses.
Either there are Snorgs or there are not. This sounds like the BBC version of the "Hunting of the Snark"
Until their existence can be verified to us they do not exist, but there may be a possibility, not a probability. Science does not investigate mystic creatures until there is some slight evidence that warrants further investigation. The Null hypothesis is actually a statistical analysis which means the hypothesis is not supported. It is possible the Null hypothesis is correct, but in the new experimental design the old null hypothesis becomes the hypothesis: if this is not supported by evidence the researcher needs to seriously look at his design or his investigation.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ