Evolutionists disagree amongst themselves about the theory of evolution but they agree about the fact of evolution. If there is one point of agreement within evolution-dom, it is that evolution is a scientific fact. A few years after Darwin died Joseph Le Conte explained that evolution is a law, not a theory, and it is a law to which every department of natural studies must adhere. It is not merely as certain as gravity, “Nay, it is far more certain.” Similarly, Teilhard de Chardin maintained that “evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is.” Read more
18 Replies to “Evolution is a Scientific Fact: A Proposition”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
as to:
It is funny that the seemingly strongest ‘proofs’ for evolution are the very ones that presuppose the existence of God.
The reason why this would be so, i.e. why presupposing God as true would generate the seemingly strongest proofs for a theory, is because without God it is impossible to ‘prove’ anything.
Evolution is not true. So not a fact. So it could be a scientific theory is it used scientific methodology for its conclusions and still standing.
I say it doesn’t because it doesn’y use biological evidence. Just other stuff. Science is therefore not reached because its not using the very subject evidence it needs to be a theory of the subject.
Geology evidence is not biology evidence. Evolutionism is about fossils greatly which is about geology. no geology then no biology evidence comes from fossils.
@1 Born
I watched some of that video you linked to before and have posted again.
Here is another good video, You might have seen.
How atheists steal science from God. Frank Turek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gurMfV5Pmus
Jack Jones, thanks Jack. think I might take a look.
Thanks, Jack. Just finished watching the video. Adding it to my presuppositional apologetics notes.
I really enjoyed the last part where he talked a little about embryo development.,,, The father sent 300 million soldiers to fertilize the egg! 🙂 Too funny.
Turek mentioned ‘goal directed embryogenesis’ and also mentioned the scripture that tells us that God ‘formed’ each of us in the womb.
“Form” is not even on the radar map of plausible Darwinian mechanisms:
For brief example:
Evolution is a Scientific Fact.
Yes, it happens many times every day.
But no one understands it well.
Here it is:
The amazing development from zygote to birth.
That’s it.
Can anyone deny it?
That complex information-processing choreography orchestrated within the biological systems is a class in itself far above anything we arrogant humans could ever dream of.
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....heory.html
OT:
Ten Myths About Dover: #1, “Judge Jones Addressed the Actual Theory of Intelligent Design, Not a Straw Man” – December 20, 2015 (links to Myths 2-10 on site)
Excerpt: The theory of ID, meanwhile, is doing just fine. It flourishes because the scientific evidence continues to accumulate — unveiling information throughout nature that we recognize, from our positive experience, comes only from intelligence.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....01781.html
I think Cornelius is desperate for something to publish. Of course evolution is a fact. It is just how it happened is at issue. No one has a clue how it happened naturally.
Of course there is wide spread understanding on how populations can change over time but this is only a small part of evolution and it is not the evolution one really cares about? Medical science, animal husbandry and farming cares but does evolutionary biology?
Cornelius is deliberately confusing the word evolution with the mechanism for evolution. He switches back and forth in his OP.
jerry- When Cornelius says “evolution” he is talking about the untestable concept of universal common descent from some simple replicators to the diversity of life via natural selection, drift and neutral construction. He is not talking about a mere change in allele frequency. He also understands that evos use a change in allele frequency over time to be capable of the feat.
Zachriel:
What is this alleged theory? Remember, science requires quantification- see Einstein’s and Newton’s work on gravity, ie a scientific theory.
I don’t think Cornelius is saying this though he is not precise. In one spot, he does seem to define evolution as happening naturally but in other places is less clear about his “fact” comment. He should start off with the distinction of changes just appearing over time versus that these changes happened naturally.
In his answers to comments from others he dismisses common descent as necessarily part of evolution.
So concepts are
Evolution 1 – things have changed over time and no one knows how this happened, Only logical conclusion from data.
Evolution 2 – things have changed over time and are due to natural processes. No one knows what these natural processes are. A philosophical proposition with no proof. It is begging the question.
Evolution 2a – the processes were Darwinian. Definitely not true.
Evolution 3 – things have changed over time and all life descended naturally from one original species which appeared due to natural processes from non living materials. A philosophical proposition with no proof. More begging the question.
(I guess this chemical process could have led to separate organisms and which case the original entity was a non-living entity and a mixture of molecules.) Like 2 there could be a 3a version.
All of this is old but it sure gets some knee jerked responses. I thought Matzke’s response was especially childish.
Where evolution is a fact:
Wherever its definition ceases to mean anything substantive and helpful for understanding the universe. For example, things change over time. Incontestable.
Where evolution is not even a theory:
Everywhere it has been attempted to use it to predict future outcomes. It has a 100% fail rate at predicting anything useful, including the following year’s flu strain. We can’t use it to predict and create a flu shot that is effective in the short term (a few months). And wherever it has abjectly categorically failed with historical, archaeological and paleontological predictions, dogmatic evolution priests rejigger the “prediction” post facto post facto (not a typing error – dont forget that we were ALREADY post facto whenever historical “predictions” are made). Outside of wishful thinking and hopeful interpretation, we have no evidence of abiogenesis or trans-genus/order/phylum evolution, th very pillars of evolutionary “fact.”
That’s not to say that the standard idea of Evolution is not potentially true. Potentially, it is true. But there is nothing fixing it as a fact outside of a priori rejection of and total aversion toward design, a designer, and the concept of humility where you realize you simply don’t and cannot know that materialism is true or fully explanatory.
Taking one possibility (evolution) as Fact, as a result of the aforementioned rejection of essential human humility, is not a scientific or philosophical proposition. It is a psychopathic character flaw. I recognize the possibility that evolution in some mutated recontextualized format may end up being partially right. Some days I feel more confident about it than others. But in the end, because I’m open to the design inference and I’m a non-psychopathic human, I cannot cast my lot to the evolution-is-fact meme. People who have zero introspection and insist on hating the idea of design have nowhere else to go. They must become evangelists for evolution-is-fact.
When we are humble, the distant, the past, the future and the minute are unknowable. Only the immediate, measurable, proximal and repeatedly testable are knowable as fact. Other things we have a sense of possibility and probability. Only when our ego becomes a god do we start making proclamations about certain possibilities being impossible and other possibilities unquestionable.
Jack “I think Cornelius is desperate for something to publish”
Key words “I think”
So you admit that you are not identical with your brain then?
jerry: Evolution 1 – things have changed over time and no one knows how this happened, Only logical conclusion from data.
Well, that’s not accurate. The most important mechanism is common descent.
jerry: Evolution 2a – the processes were Darwinian. Definitely not true.
Some processes were almost certainly Darwinian.
jerry: Evolution 3 – things have changed over time and all life descended naturally from one original species which appeared due to natural processes from non living materials. A philosophical proposition with no proof. More begging the question.
Neither of those statements are philosophical, but historical. The second claim is not accounted by the Theory of Evolution.
jw777: Everywhere it has been attempted to use it to predict future outcomes. It has a 100% fail rate at predicting anything useful, including the following year’s flu strain.
That’s silly. It’s like saying because we can’t predict the exact traits of a baby, our scientific understanding of how babies are made is “not even a theory”.
First, common descent is not a mechanism. At best it is an observation which has never been shown. Intelligent design could just as likely be the mechanism for the appearance of new life forms. It is more likely now that we cannot conceive of any natural process that could do produce novelties.
Second, it is begging the question just as all your other comments are except the comment that some of the processes were almost certainly Darwinian but these instances were all trivial.
jerry: First, common descent is not a mechanism.
The branching process is an explanatory mechanism.
jerry: At best it is an observation which has never been shown.
Common descent is a fact and a theory. The observations are the fossil succession, the nested hierarchy, and direct observations of common descent over short time scales. The strongly supported theory is that all life has a common origin. The historical claim is that branching descent is the primary mechanism after the origin of the primary domains.
jerry: Second, it is begging the question just as all your other comments are except the comment that some of the processes were almost certainly Darwinian but these instances were all trivial.
Perhaps trivial to you, human, but non-trivial to the organisms involved.
Zachriel is a cowardly equivocator and an insipid troll. The fossil succession shows fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods, whereas common descent expects fish-> fish-a-pods-> tetrapods. And common descent does not expect a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies require distinct categories and transitional forms means there shouldn’t be any. Common descent expects transitional forms.
That means Zachriel is either a liar or willfully ignorant. Either way it isn’t worth the bandwidth it wastes here.
Cheers,
Virgil Cain