Saturday, October 01, 2005

Evolutionary theory is holding up day after day to scientific tests

Evolutionary theory is more complete than any other commonly accepted theory. Nevertheless we spend a lot of time to teach students about gaps and problems in Darwin's Theory, but no time about the problems with atomic or gravitational theory. We keep teaching students about electrons because we don't completely understand the nature of quarks.

Evolution is a way of understanding the world that hold up day after day to scientific tests. Problems exist in Darwinism, and some details are sure to be refined over time - but it's not failings of the theory of evolution, only small and technical gaps.

Proponents of ID use these gaps as an excuse to propose ID as an alternative theory to Darwinism. ID supporters want to avoid the scientific review process by political action in a court case. Why can’t they go through the same processes as scientists do to get their ideas heard? Does ID have an excuse from the process of peer-reviewed study? Proponents of ID must demonstrate how hypotheses can be tested by experiment or observation. Getting a scientific theory of any kind accepted takes time. The problem is that ID isn't a theory - ID isn't falsifiable and therefore only a hypothesis. In addition, it bothers me why nobody discusses gaps and problems in ID.

ID isn't Science.

ID is a masked effort to replace science with theology.

See who links to your web site.