Though evolutionists often cite testability as a criterion for acceptance, this apparently is not required when the theory is one of their own. The mutational-hazard (MH) hypothesis is difficult to test but, as one evolutionist reminds us, that is no reason to reject it: read more
7 Replies to “Evolutionist: Sub Hypotheses of Evolution Need Not Be Testable”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Evolution is a fact. Why test?
if the evidence was excellent things wouldn’t need to be tested.
Did einsteins stuff really need to be tested?
Couldn’t it make sense without testing?
How is evolution tested and no fossils need apply???
Don’t forget that the Evolutionists were smart enough to work out that nothing had changed itself into everything. Which was pretty clever, even for nothing. Sorry, Nothing. Not to capitalise ‘nothing’ would constitute such impiety, it would, surely, be the ultimate outrage.
So they have set the bar very high. We must remain humble in the face of such awesome intelligence. Only Nothing could have filled them with such insight. And Nothing is a jealous God, who legislates the aptitude of candidates for tenures.
All hail, Nothing! It seems that St Augustine was misdirecting this paean to what he fondly imagined was his God. Imagine if he’d known the one true God: Nothing.
A Paean to Nothing – by Eric Jarvis Thribb, renowned atheist and cosmologist.
‘Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.’
I forgot to mention that Eric Jarvis Thribb was 13 when he adapted that paean to the Almighty. My apologies, Eric. Also for failing to mention Keith’s Mum.
I should also mention, for those abroad, and unfamiliar with the British satirical magazine, Private Eye, as it was several decades ago, that Eric Jarvis Thribb (13) was a fictitious school-boy, who used to write obituary odes to recently-deceased, famous people.
They invariably began with the somewhat archaic and sententious valediction: ‘So, farewell, great….’; and would also include some obiter dictum of Keith’s Mum.
I would note that there was great and general resistance to Einstein’s ideas when they first came out. It was only after parts of his theories were proven correct during an eclipse in 1919 (um, the light from a distant star really was bent by the gravity well of Sol) that the debate began to shift in his favor and require the Newtonians to produce disproofs of Relativity. His basic theory is based on some very simple algebra, which assumes you have access to facilities that can move objects at speeds very close to the speed of light and record very precisely their mass and velocity. One is reminded of Galileo’s attempt to measure the speed of light using 2 lanterns and a pocket watch…
To his discredit, Einstein rejected the theories of Quantum Mechanics, which is the intended subject for his famous “God does not play dice with the Universe.”
But if Evolution is a valid scientific theory, it should accept the basic scientific need for proofs. A theory that can’t be tested is worthless.
mahuna
i understood they did test Einsteins stuff but I understood is was anti-climatic.
You seem knowledgable about it and imply his ideas only mattered after testing.
Yet it seems to me they were so filled out that a honest thinkler wouldn’t need verification.
Did Einstein need it?
I still would say excellent ideas don’t need this small thing of testing to prove them true.
However I stand corrected if Einstein did need it.