Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

There Is No Theory of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical. Honest scientists admit this. For example:

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007, Source

On the other hand, dishonest scientists applaud suing a public school for adding the following disclaimer to a biology textbook

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The school was even kind enough to call it a theory instead of an hypothesis. Amazing, isn’t it?

Comments
bFast: "Let science get honest, follow Newton’s lead, and just say, 'we don’t know.' " You got it. __________ Usually I don't point out my typos, but I just realized that there's one in the heart of the quote. It should be "I feign no hypotheses" [i.e., plural] -- the (semi)famous "hypotheses non fingo" in Latin. [Sorry, Sir Isaac.]j
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
There is a perfect analogy as to why this is:
There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely.
It's the story about the drunk guy looking for his keys. He was looking for them under the street-light even though he dropped them somewhere down the road where there wasn't any light. His reasoning was he couldn't see in the dark to search where he dropped them. (evolutionists are the drunk guy telling us that their keys are under the light) ------------------------------------ The fact of evolution- populations will either change or remain the same. The theory talks about the mechanisms that allow for that fact. Any questions? :)Joseph
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Good quote, J. I agree that science can live quite happily without a theory of how common descent occurred. I also find it ingriguing that there isn't yet a true theory of gravity -- though string "theory"does seem to have a hypothetical proposal at last. Let science get honest, follow Newton's lead, and just say, "we don't know."bFast
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Crandaddy, Physicists and chemists also cling staunchly to their naturalistic assumptions. Why is biology a special case? Mikey TutuMichael "Tutu" Tuite
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica:
Hitherto we have explained the phænomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffereing the least diminution of its force; that it operates...according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, descreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances... But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I feign no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
j
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
There appear to be two tenets which Darwinists hold to be central to their ideology theory: 1)That biotic phenomena arise via numerous, successive modifications of existing physiological structures (I'm here considering abiogenesis a separate topic); and most importantly 2)that ALL MODIFICATIONS ARE NATURALISTIC. Number two, especially, must be enforced at all costs. Beyond this, it seems that anything and everything goes.crandaddy
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
I think one counter-point that needs to be made here is that the term "theory of evolution" means different things to different people and contexts. I wholeheartedly agree that the neoDarwinian "random variation + natural selection" explanation does not merit the title of "theory". However, I do see good supporting evidence for common descent. I have no trouble at all calling common descent a theory. I still respect those who present the common design model, however, so I would not go so far as to say that common descent is "fact" either.bFast
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Dave, How can you possibly suggest that Dawinian evolution is not a well-established scientific theory when there is copious hard evidence like this http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/?GilDodgen
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
JGuy, Dawkins, "Well I guess that is a matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent, so powerful." LOL!Jehu
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Dave, You make an excellent point. I think ID types should keep mentioning the fact that Darwinists want to censor in the name of science, so Darwinists should always be held to very high epistemic standards.mynym
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Dave, Don't you know that all it takes is faith... Listen to Dawkins: http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpgJGuy
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
This is really strange. I mean are darwinists implying that darwinian evolution is tested better than Quantam Mechanics that they don't want it to be called theory!IDist
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
It's quite amazing that basically evolution is magic, yet evolutionists accuse ID of being magic. "You can't just invoke an intelligent designer! That's not a scientific explanation of the origin of life and of species, that's just a wave of the magic ID wand!" But when you ask how evolution could produce new species through scores of beneficial mutations (which we don't observe) over countless iterations of intermediary organisms (which we don't have fossils of), you're just asked to accept that it happened because Science has proved it to be so. "Life only appears to be designed. Species only seem like they popped into existence. It's all an illusion." Like magic!Jared White
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply