I was listening to a discussion of creation versus evolution and it got me to thinking about science. In our culture today when you attach the word “science” to anything it is taken as absolute truth. This is not always the case and we should be more discerning with our judgments on such claims.
There is a huge difference between operational science and historical science. One is legitimate, the other is not. The theory of evolution falls under the latter category.
Operational science is based on observation and the scientific method. It seeks to study how things “operate” today. You remember learning about the scientific method in junior high. There are several steps involved. One of the steps is that something tested must be repeatable, etc.
It is impossible to apply operational science and the scientific method to something that is not around. It is impossible to observe how something operated in history. Scientist cannot observe how things supposedly “evolved” in the past, because we cannot subject those things to observable, measurable, repeatable tests.
I am not saying that you cannot study history. We can and we should. Disciplines like archeology are important and informative. They can look at things we find and use those to help connect the dots. But, it is incomplete at best and is especially problematic the further you go back in history.
This does not disprove evolution. It does couch the debate in different terms. Evolution is a “theory”. A theory is a supposition or an assumption. Sometimes a theory can be based on current observable information. But, to take the fact that some birds’ beaks have slightly modified (i.e. Darwin) and then to jump to the statement that they must have evolved over millions and millions of years, is not science! It is not even a good assumption.
Tell that to a biologist and watch the fur fly! But, it is true! If public schools want to teach Darwinian Evolution that is fine, but it is not a scientific fact! And it shouldn’t be taught as such.
There is a huge difference between operational science and historical science. One is legitimate, the other is not. The theory of evolution falls under the latter category.
Operational science is based on observation and the scientific method. It seeks to study how things “operate” today. You remember learning about the scientific method in junior high. There are several steps involved. One of the steps is that something tested must be repeatable, etc.
It is impossible to apply operational science and the scientific method to something that is not around. It is impossible to observe how something operated in history. Scientist cannot observe how things supposedly “evolved” in the past, because we cannot subject those things to observable, measurable, repeatable tests.
I am not saying that you cannot study history. We can and we should. Disciplines like archeology are important and informative. They can look at things we find and use those to help connect the dots. But, it is incomplete at best and is especially problematic the further you go back in history.
This does not disprove evolution. It does couch the debate in different terms. Evolution is a “theory”. A theory is a supposition or an assumption. Sometimes a theory can be based on current observable information. But, to take the fact that some birds’ beaks have slightly modified (i.e. Darwin) and then to jump to the statement that they must have evolved over millions and millions of years, is not science! It is not even a good assumption.
Tell that to a biologist and watch the fur fly! But, it is true! If public schools want to teach Darwinian Evolution that is fine, but it is not a scientific fact! And it shouldn’t be taught as such.
1 comment:
Good stuff.
The removal of God from all "scientific" equations has resulted in some of the most bizarre "leaps of faith" imaginable by otherwise highly intelligent people regarding the origins of life on earth.
At the root of the utter, absolute statistical improbability of a self-designed, self-generated, and self-sustaining universe is - I'm sure you would agree - a profound, insidious spiritual blindness that is exceeded only by that of many passionately "religious" persons who are absolutely convinced that they "see."
"If the light that is in you is DARKNESS, how GREAT is that darkness."
Bryan
Post a Comment