For centuries, the 'Theory of Evolution,' coined by Charles Darwin, has provided scientists and researchers no verifiable facts validating that the theory is a complete truth. Several scientists have gone as far as altering data to fit the theory, thus ignoring the real facts.
The real facts, however, are that the theory cannot be proven without testing, and to be more specific, repeated testing. Therefore, when using the scientific method there is no way to test past historical events.
(thanks Lauren)
13 comment(s):
Ah yes, the joys of bashing Darwin! You in the back, you forgot to set your cross on fire! Sorry, got carried away.
Remember that "Electricity" is also a theory. No aspect of Electircity is proven, and as yet, it cannot be explained by science. But much of what is understood about a theory (including evolution) has survived repeated testing. ...and theories not only ALLOW for disagreement, they benefit from it, as scientists work toward clarification.
The article linked too is overly simplistic, and seems to imply that for a "Theory" to be true (and again, no theory has ever been proven), it must be wholly original. Darwin never claimed to have come up with it by himself, and that isn't necessary for it to be taken seriously.
There are far better arguments against Darwin's approach than the high-school level article this links to. And keep in mind, attacking the author of a theory does not equate to successfully refuting the theory.
Excellent article. Personally, I am sceptical about gravity too.
OMG!
No aspects of electricity have been proven??? So the ligth irradiated from a bulb is magically created.
Electricity is not a theory and it can be explained by science!!! OHM's LAW sound familiar? How about Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism?
Electricity is a theory. I can tell you don't do much reading based on the "OMG" and exuberant use of exclamation points.
The fact that light is emitted from a lightbulb does not "prove" the theory of electricity. It is an example of its effect. It is not understood what the mechanism is behind electricity, or gravity for that matter. Please do a little reading and criticial thinking. Science is not opinion. And theories stand until they are dismantled, and another theory takes their place. It is astounding that people with no concept of what science is, (it is a construct, with rules for debate and discussion) will chime in proving and disproving things based on half-thought. You don't get to vote on science.
KIt's very much like math. Also a human construct. The number zero does not "exist". It is a handy invention that solves things in the mathematical world. The Calculus was not discovered. It was invented. And just like science, math is attacked from within far more from without. And yet it is always those on the outside who claim to be able to make sweeping declarations about it.
The Theory of Electricity is (for now) the best current explanation we have for what takes place. It is a unifying theory which explains many (but not all) the phenomena we observe, but that does not mean we know why electrons move, or that the weak force, or even gravity, aren't somehow tied together by an even more fundamental 'force'. But some guy is working on it right now, and if his (or her) explanation makes "electricity" a little clearer, it will further our understanding. It may even take down some well established ideas about electricity, but it will still be adding to the theory rather than dismantling it.
Gravity is a theory too. Just because you don't fly off into space means we understand how it works or why it is.
sheesh.
@Anonymous
"The article linked too is overly simplistic, and seems to imply that for a "Theory" to be true (and again, no theory has ever been proven), it must be wholly original. Darwin never claimed to have come up with it by himself, and that isn't necessary for it to be taken seriously."
This is not a dissertation, this is a simple explanation of the what led to the publication of his works.
If you start from this statement "Darwin’s lust for fame led him to publish his works built on the shoulders of others, thereby allowing his integrity to be questioned by his peers and mentors, and ultimately his theories to be disproved by new evidence using fossil records which was Darwin’s greatest fear."
So basically we are talking about his work built on the shoulders of others, which yes, foundations were clearly laid out. His integrity to be question, yes that is true. The fossil records that are presently being investigated, so yes a theory that he may have had could have been speculated. They also could have disproved the rules of his principles.
So many questions, but I think your opinion that this paper is a high school paper is quite ignorant. You and I both know that when papers get to the 250 page mark, and they've quoted hundreds of sources, and most of the time they make no sense, well then we see these as complex and superb papers.
This article is for readers that don't have a background in the field. The site is a view from an archaeology student.
i am obviously stupid, because i am having trouble understanding what a few of your paragraphs actually mean. sorry. you say "if you start from this statement..." and then never provide the "what follows". what is the point of that paragraph?
of course his work is built on others'. did any of them coalesce it all and provide a unifying hypothesis to move the discussion forward? no.
i'm saying your synopsis of the 250 page work you are referring to (maybe it too is yours, i don't know), is an oversimplification, whose purpose seems to be to shock or create some controversial position.
no theory is unassailable. no theorist works alone (certainly not any theory that has stood the test of time, anyway). and all theories by their nature are designed to be attacked and tested. just don't substitute success in attacking the long-dead author for success in attacking the theory.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm deathly sick right now and trying to explain myself, so obviously I'm at fault here.
There is no 250 dissertation. I would never dream of writing about Darwin on a deeper level I suppose, especially since my interest lies in the Templars. Besides the point. lol
Like I said "This article is for readers that don't have a background in the field. The site is a view from an archaeology student." I did a poll previously on the site asking people what they knew and understood about Darwin. They said very little, which prompted this article.
As for your confusion, I meant for the thesis statement to explain the points I went over in the second paragraph. Confused still I'm sure? I am too. lol
Not an in depth assesment of Darwin by any means. Yes, it's quite simplified.
It is not so that you can not experiment with evolution.... How about anti-biotic resistant bacteria? they evolved because WE used too much antibiotics. the few bacteria that survived reproduced new evolved bacteria. How about sikkle cell disease? people with sikkle cell dissease are imune to malaria. and what do we see? There are more people with this disease living in malaria-infested areas than in areas with no malaria. It is actually an advantage to have this disease when living with malaria. These are just two examples of 'experiments'. Plenty more where that came from!
Seriously? You're posting this? It's complete shit.
Evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, not only from the fossil record, but also from genetic research, and laboratory experiments, which all converge and support the theory.
There are so many logical fallacies here I don't have the energy to start breaking them down.
You are what you say you are.
I'm an electrical engineer. I do know for a fact electricity is not a theory. It exists, can be measured, contained, transmitted, transformed, etc. All aspects of electricity can be proven by scientific experiments, repeatedly I must add. Current, power, tension, fields, etc. You want to prove electricity is not a theory? stick your fingers in an outlet or take my word for it and simply get a voltmeter and make some experiments!!!
Note: No, a voltmeter is not a magic instrument like a wand or anything like that. It's an apparatus that measures potential difference between two points.
PS. You don't seem to know what the definition of a theory is. Gravity is not a theory either. Whether your like it or not, it exists and can be proven as well. Yes, we don't know how either one came to be, as any other aspects of matter and/or energy, but that doesn't mean their existance cannot be proven by scientific means, which precisely converts any theory into law.
This is my last comment about this matter. I don't like stubborn people who don't accept they are wrong, when they obviously are.
Respectfully.
@D R E W P
You would be right. I added a section to the article about the myths of evolution creationists have about the subject.
I'm sure you started reading this and thought to yourself, a theory is already a truth, and you would be right. The Theory of Evolution, which hardly appears in Darwin's Origin of Species book, is a scientific fact, however it took writing this article to find out about the facts behind Darwin's research.
It's funny, especially considering how authors of his time refuted the facts that animals and humans evolved. The sources I used were so culturally biased it was hard to actually dissect what was and wasn't the truth.
Here https://writemypaper4me.org/blog/position-paper-sample you would find a position paper sample. You can even write yours about evolution!
Post a Comment