Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

I've created this thread to accommodate another poster who is hot to debate this issue and keeps trying to do so on threads that have nothing to do with the subject. I thought this might provide an outlet for him.

 

how isn't it valid? it's one of the biggest theories and most logical ever thought up...

 

Good question. I'm sure we'll find out.

 

wait i'm confused, do you believe in evolution or is this sort of like a parody thread or a bait thread?

 

A little bit of both. It's a good topic and deserves intelligent discussion. A guy on two other threads that have nothing to do with evolution has been trying repeatedly to divert the discussion to the topic as stated, and then accuse people who wouldn't join in of conceding the argument. So I thought I'd set this up so that people who really are knowledgeable and interested in the subject could actually join in the debate, presumably with him. You were a little quick for me. I do admire evolutionary theory, and I plan to get into this, but actually the reason I set it up was because I wanted to talk about the other stuff and was tired of being interrupted.

 

Where the theory of evolution is concerned, I (a Christian) have no problem believing in Darwin because the Anthropic Principle, the origins of life, and human consciousness provide me with a sufficient basis for believing in a Higher Power. My acceptance of Darwin is largely a result of my respect for two Christian scientists--Catholic evolutionary biologist, Dr. Kenneth Miller, star witness against ID in the Dover, Pa., textbook trial; and evangelical Christian, Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project. Both make a convincing case for natural selection, as well as the fine tuning of the universe that loads the dice in favor of intelligent life.

Nevertheless, I think the subject of evolution is highly politicized, in the same way as global warming is politicized, and only naive thinkers regard it as strictly a matter of science and logic. There are high stakes in this game. For non-believers, Darwin provided a plausible explanation for a problem that otherwise was awkward: how did all this come about without a Designer? Skeptics like Hume might be content to say "We just don't know", but most people found that unsatisfying. On the other hand, believers understandably felt challenged by a scientific explanation based on random mutations and naturalistic processes that left out God. Until rather recently, the evolutionists seemed to be winning the argument, but the Creationists and ID crowd have launched a counterattack that has been rather effective in winning the hearts and minds of intelligent people.

The development of the Judeo-Christian counter-reformation against Darwin is itself an example of evolution, from primitive fire-breathing bible thumpers spouting scripture to sophisticated information theorists spouting mathematics. First came Henry Morris, with a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering, a New Earth Creationist and the "father of creation science", who used his education to develop an elaborate "scientific" defense of Genesis called "flood geology". He explained the fossil record as species left behind during the great flood. He was joined by biochemist Dr. Duane Gish, Vice President of the Creation Research Institute, famous for his nimble footwork and streetfighter prowess in debates with evolutionists, and his argument that macro-evolution is a myth. The New Earth Creationists were viewed with concern by traditional fundamentalists, who objected to the conspicuous avoidance of scripture for tactical reasons in trying to persuade the courts that creationism was science instead of religion. They also found a challenger in the Old Earth Creationism of Dr. Hugh Ross, astronomer and astrophysicist, who was able to gain more credibility with a scientifically inclined by conceding an earth billions of years old while denying the possibility of abiogenesis because of the cosmic radiation in the early stages of earth's development.

The defeat of the Scientific Creationists in the 1987 Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard, holding that creationism is religious and cannot be taught in public schools, opened the way for a new species of scientific anti-evolutionism: Intelligent Design. To some evolutionists, ID seemed like Creationism in new clothing, but for believers it was a controversial step closer to Darwin in accepting evolution but arguing that it couldn't be explained without an Intelligent Designer. The father of ID was Philip E. Johnson, Co-founder of the Discovery Institute, who had no science degree but was a retired Berkeley law professor and lawyer, as well as a born again Christian. He brought his advocacy skills to the movement to discredit evolution, using trial lawyer tactics to cast reasonable doubt and characterizing evolution as a "theory in crisis" and an atheist conspiracy. Yet ID's superstar, biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, is quite close to the Darwinists in some respects, even accepting common ancestry of humans and chimps. But he argued that natural selection alone couldn't account for the "irreducible complexity" of living organisms. This argument suffered a setback at the Dover textbook trial, when evolutionary biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, himself a devout Catholic like Behe, produced evidence refuting Behe's key examples.

The latest assault by ID comes from number crunching information theorists and statisticians, like William Dembski, Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner. In characteristic fashion, they describe Neo-Darwinist theory as "shattered", but have made less headway in developing a theory of their own sophisticated enough to be taught in public schools as a secular alternative. Spetner actually acknowledges that evolution occurred, but contends that it happened as a result of non-random mutations, as cellular pre-programming is triggered by environmental cues. A devout Jew, he claims that his theory is derivable from the Talmud.

As for the Darwinists, they themselves offer some formidable polemicists, notably Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. As is the case with Scientific Creationism and ID, they have impressive credentials as scientists, but their main occupation and style is Apologetics. Ironically, whichever side prevails in this fight will illustrate Darwin's theory in action. The "winning" argument will not necessarily be the truth but the meme that has the greatest survival value in its environment. Neo-Darwinism holds an advantage in controlling the academies and the peer reviewed journals of the scientific establishment. On the other hand, the ID folks are well-funded and have a talent for blogs and websites, and their message seems to resonate with the lay public, especially, of course, the religious right which is the Republican base. Most of them publish in journals of the ID community, or in religious outlets. For example, Spetner bypassed the usual channels of the peer reviewed journals to publish a book in Judaica Press, a religious publisher. Of course, it is also possible that both perspectives will survive and thrive in a symbiotic relationship, drawing energy from each other for mutual benefit, like the endosymbiosis of eukaryotic organelles identified by evolutionist Lynn Margoulis. Philip Johnson was inspired by Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker to found the ID movement to challenge the book. I that sense, Richard Dawkins might be considered the unwitting inspiration for ID. In sum, caveat emptor.

 

One who makes the claim has burden of proof.
I am not obliged to prove non-existence, it's those who claim that theory of evolution is scientifically valid theory who also carry burden of proof.

With this I am waiting for any follower of Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution to step forward and amuse us with bunch of wishful fantasy and fairy tales as "reasons" why should this fraudulent product of hoax perpetrators be accepted as scientifically valid theory (I am putting pop-corn in microwave) :cheers2:

 

To start off, I'm sure the definition of validity will come up, as it has on the other sites. Two opposing definitions were put forward and became the subject of intense, heated discussion: (1)"Validity simply means that if the premises are true the conclusion should follow logically." Xac; and (2) Valid means well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>

synonyms valid , sound, cogent, convincing mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. valid implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority. sound implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds; cogent may stress either weight of sound argument and evidence or lucidity of presentation; convincing suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to accept & etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid Webster/Jumbuli.

I'm easy. I can go with either, or both. As OP, I opt for keeping both in mind during the discussion. Note, however, that validity is not the same as truth. A theory can be valid in terms of meeting the above criteria and still be false. The Big Bang Theory is valid on the basis of known evidence, but it rests on assumptions which might eventually be scrapped or modified. Some scientists call evolution a "fact". I'd settle for a valid theory.

For a definition of evolution, I submit the following definition of Darwinism from Answers.com:"A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory." Note, however, that the theory as accepted by scientists today is considerably modified to account for other factors besides natural selection, e.g., genetic drift and endosymbiosis.

I'm not a scientist, so when I say I'm impressed with evolution as a scientific theory, I'm voicing the opinion of a lay person who has studied the subject and formed what I consider to be an informed opinion on the subject--open to revision if convincing arguments to the contrary are presented. Evolution is one of a number of subjects about which people with impressive professional credentials disagree--global warming being an example that comes to mind. One approach is for lay people to suspend judgment. But that sometimes concedes the game to charlatans who abuse their scientific credentials for a variety of personal motives--or who are sometimes just nuts. If we suspend judgment on global warming, things may be out of control by the time scientific consensus is reached (which may never come if the "expert" holdouts are on the take from polluting corporations).

My approach is the same one I take toward theological questions like "Is there a God?" or "Is Jesus real?" Read a lot, reflect a lot, get the available evidence, and make the best judgment you can on the basis of reason, reflection, experience, intuition, and inference from the evidence. What more can I do? To be validated, a scientific theory must have empirical support, be refutable, be subjected to rigorous testing, and gain consensus support through the peer review process to a level of proof approximating the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". To judge whether or not a scientific theory has met this standard, a lay person like me is in the same boat as a juror in a civil trial, listening to expert testimony and trying to decide whether or not it's more likely than not that the plaintiff has made the case.

In a courtroom trial, once the prosecution or the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, e.g., by showing scientific consensus on the validity of the theory of evolution, the burden shifts to the other side to rebut that evidence. In the courtroom, a judge may take judicial notice of well-established facts to avoid reinventing the wheel. Mr. Jumbuli has suggested that the burden of proof rests on those who assert a position on the subject, which he does implicitly, but coyly refuses to acknowledge. By characterizing the theory of evolution as "Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution" he's made an assertion, and a bold one. Note the wording of the topic: "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory". I must give credit where credit is due. I borrowed that from Jumbuli.

 

First let's start off with this simple clarification:

Are you hereby asseting that Darwin's theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid Theory or are you disputing the meaning (linguistics) of the word VALID in the context of defining what the Scientifically Valid Theory is?

If :

A) You assert that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid Theory

then:

Go ahead, present the evidence and proof to back up your assertion.

B) You dispute the meaning (linguistics) of the word VALID in the context of it's usage/in the phrase Scientifically Valid Theory

then:

Explain what exactly do you think the word VALID in such context means, how it differs from my usage of it in all my previous relevant posts and what do you think the phrase Scientifically Valid Theory implies.


I've got a pop-corn and cold beer here :cheers2:

 

Firstly, a major problem I have that lies with any type of scientific theorem; including, but not limited to, these following examples; evolution and global warming of the present day, and the Flat-Earth theory, the classic elemental theory, and many astrophysical theories of the past. This problem is when people readily accept the scientific teachings of the day as absolute truth and how quickly people say it is absurd to question these "facts".
In the modern age, the theory of evolution is seen and taught in many cases as "absolute fact". I was taught this at school in science and when telling my teacher that this was merely a theory and not, as he said, fact he seemed to take this rather harshly and said it was absurd to think of evolution as "just a theory".
But that is what evolution is, just a theory. And until people stop viewing science as solid, concrete fact and began seeing it as work in progress, we can never progress.

But what has this got to do with this debate, you may ask? Read this excerpt and it will show you what I mean.

But OK, I am probably missing the point of the debate thus far. I have argued that evolution is not scientific fact rather than a valid scientific theory, although I might be able to say these points are one and the same.

Micro-evolution, I would say is a fairly solid theory, and observable in the real world in the many species of a certain animal. For example you do not have just a "dog", you have a dalmatian, Labrador, poodle, King Charles spaniel and so forth. This, I believe is valid proof for micro-evolution which is why I have no problem with this theory.
My problem is with macro-evolution. This would be nearly impossible to prove as fact because no living scientist can claim to have been alive in the dawn of life when macro-evolution allegedly happened. Add to that, the sources by which science finds these facts from pre-historical times can also be easily refuted, even by scientists themselves.

If scientists themselves admit that they can't really back up evolution, what chance is there for the rest of us?
This alone is a good reason for me to dismiss the evolution theory.

 

This thread needs to be put in the pure bull section.

 

Why is it so? What is so "pure bull" about challenging the wide spread but unsubstantiated by anything other than such assertion assertion that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically valid theory?

 

Because if you honestly think that the theory of evolution is invalid, as of right now... Well I'm sorry but you're doomed to ride the special bus forever.

 

Okiefreak (and others) brought this up repeatedly in past , assuming I was confused about understanding the differences between Scientifically Valid Theory and Empirically Observed Fact.

I made it clear more than once though that I was not confused about the meaning of the phrase Scientifically valid Theory as opposed to Empirically Observed Event, so it's not clear to me why they keep bringing this up over and over again.
But since I never debated the subject with you, here is the quote from my earlier responce on it to Okiefreak:

All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter still corresponds well with an actual knowledge about the behavior of same) and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers.
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

 

What I am doomed to ride is irrelevant here.

What matters is do you honestly beleive that Darwins Theory of Evolution is indeed Scientifically Valid Theory and assert so?

And if answer to above question is YES, then you are also obliged to prove it's scientific validity or you have no claim to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

Ardi

&

Resistance to anti-biotics in bacteria

 

And how does typing above prove that Darwin's theory is Scientifically Valid one

 

Google is your friend

What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove?

Origin of life or how species evolve?

 

Google-shmoogle, you are out of discussion since you have nothing to back up your claim.

Next !

 

I see you edited your original post, so I'll still give you a chance to respond

That darwin's Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid one.

Even Darwinists, as far as I know, have no theory about origins of life.

But they claim to know how species evolved (random chance and natural selection) and if you assert that such claim is scientifically valid then you also have burden to prove it.