Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and ZpiralZone
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
Dec 2005 14:07:55 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
Wrong. Observe the evidence. A great deal of science involves things
that are too small, too fast, or too distant (in space and time) to be
directly observed. We observe the evidence left behind and work from
that.
Attempt at modification of Sm to suit your needs is dishonest. From
your cited webpage step one is:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Nothing about evidence. In fact observation is just that...
Observation. By calling it "evidence" you have already a bias on what
you want to accomplish, and and your directing your readers that
everything you observed is already evidence of a theory, without even
reaching step two.
The fossil record, research into DNA and how gene sequences change,
and yes, some direct observational evidence all support evolution.
Actually it doesn't. I can use the same "evidence" to demonstrate
terraforming by aliens. You could not deny this.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Nothing in the Faqs about a time traveler going back into time to
observe evolution as the origin of man. Misdirection noted.
Oh, and the actual Scientific Method:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Notice the first *real* step is "Observation and description of a
phenomenon or group of phenomena." In evolution, that observation is
"there a millions of species of animal and plant on Earth."
That same description you give, can be applied to either creation or
terraforming.
Or Magic of Narnia, your choice.
The second step is forming a theory.
--
True enough. Could be evolution, or space aliens terraforming the
planet. However from your cited website let move on to step three.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Interesting indeed. TOE should predict the emergence of new life form,
constant emergence of new lifeforms. Or the branching out of new life
forms, Life forms that can not breed with its progenitors . That
should be easy if we had "new observations". Since there is
contradiction on what a species should be per the infamous T.O faqs,
that invalidate speciation as observing anything new.
And then we have step 4, my favorite:
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
No new life form has emerged in a lab by experiment to prove evolution
as the origin of man. And you would be real dumb to bring on the fruit
fly into this thread..
.
