I don't think you undestand the Scientific Method. You tring to act like an expert is amusing as always, though. I also wonder how a 'theory' that takes for a fact that macro-evolution, or even abiogenesis, exists, without it ever being observed, is 'settled'.
Please elaborate. Abiogenesis is actually a separate concept, not a part of evolution. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began, just how life develops.
If that's the case, why is money still being spent on trying to prove abiogenesis, for example? It's the key foundation block for evolutionary theory, yet some scientists won't even move it past the hypothesis level.
It is hardly settled when you have nothing to observe. There is what crowbot repeatedly mentions "God of Gaps" that proves that nothing is even close to settled. All that has been settling is more theories to justify theories. No observations can be made because the theories are not observable. The main theory that it takes thousands of years to make small changes is seriously waging the dog. Like I said, you could use the lifers in prision to give evidence that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and you can have thousands of documented observations of any genetic mutations in process.
Um yes, evolution does attempt to explain how life began. The words "can't" and "doesn't" have different meanings, though, which even Darwin himself struggled with later in life. Accepting evolutionary theory unquestioned is, in my opinion, akin to accepting creationism without skepticism.
Sure--if you operate under the assumption that macro-evolution is incontrovertible, and you operate under the assumption that the miniscule sample size provided by recorded history, observable nature, and explored strata provides a comprehensive look at the panoply of life on earth, then sure, you can infer that. Or, you could operate under the notion that those assumptions are uncertain, and then the conclusion becomes uncertain as well. I prefer the "agnostic" approach on this one.
I don't think Minstrel understands that the "Theory of Evolution" is actually still a work-in-progress, and that new theories are either added to it to help explain things, or dropped from it (origin of life apparently no longer is a part of it ... didn't know that one ) in order to continue to explain it. Does evolution exist? IMO, clearly it does at some level. Are there massive holes in the theory? Of course, which is why scientists continue to research it. Saying the 'science is settled' is base-level stuff, though. I
It doesn't. Evolution isn't a theory of where life came from, it's about the origin of species, not life. I agree that accepting any scientific theory unquestioned is a mistake, which is why I've said several times that there's nothing wrong with legitimate challenges to evolution. Asking questions that aren't considered problems with the theory within the scientific community isn't really a "legitimate challenge."
I'm right there with you on that one. Creationism as well, although I do find evolution much more likely than the Adam and Eve stuff, which is completely unbelievable for those of us without faith.
Yep and there is no question that the possibility of evolution could be factual. But thinking that evolution is "settled" is like saying the Blazers have won 20 titles in the last 30+ years.
That's a decent approach, IMO. I can seriously respect that way of thinking. What I can't except are people that are so close minded that they refuse to listen to the other side. We have that on both ends of the spectrum.
The two go hand in hand. All life had to derive from some sort of living organism. If you can't explain where that organism came from, the entire theory comes into question. Curious as to when you started speaking for the "scientific community". Not being able to answer something, and ignoring it as a part of the theory, doesn't seem very scientific to me. You do understand that there are many components, hypotheses, and tangential theories comprising the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that you seem to be stuck on, right?
But this is where I disagree with you. Just because the scientific community agrees that the theory is sound doesn't make that theory sound. If you don't have observable evidence to prove a theory is sound; then you are just making an educated guess. Maybe evolution really isn't a theory. Maybe it's just an agreement of many educated people. Until we have recorded documentation that genetic mutations occur and species can macroly evolve; then you can make claims that "evolution is settled" or specific parts of evolutional theory is settled. So far, that isn;t the case in modern science.
Let's not leave any theory unchallenged! Once again, bask in the warm glow of Intelligent Falling, wherein you are gently pressed to the surface of the earth by His loving hand. http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
