"...there has been an ongoing debate within the scientific community, largely among individuals who believe in evolution, about the validity of evolution as a scientific principle. The statement published in the Humanist suggests that under the pressure of current criticism leveled at evolution, basic scientific values may be overlooked or given secondary place over other factors."
(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I see we are still quoting articles from the 1970s.
It is the nature of science to question itself and to draw conclusions from its answers and then to question those conclusions. What you a trying to say by quoting this is not understood.
The date doesn't matter, since what the article is saying still holds true.
The article challenges the claim that Evolutionists often make, namely, that "Creationism is not scientific," while Evolution is "strictly scientific."
It states:
"The concept of predictability and subsequent testability has prompted the noted scientific philosopher Karl Popper to further emphasize that if an explanation cannot be adequately tested, it is not scientific. The concept must be testable (i.e., falsifiable) to qualify."
"The unrepeatable or untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. Thus the concept of evolution as a principle of science is being questioned at a most fundamental level."
In addition, it goes on to say that:
"The concept of survival of the fittest of itself does not necessarily imply any evolution. Would not the fittest survive, whether they evolved or were created? The noted evolutionist Mayr (1976, p.3) speaks of "an all-powerful natural selection." Platnick (1977) wonders if there is any difference in this kind of explanation as compared to that of an all-powerful Creator."
Post a Comment