Guy Berthault #fundie

Guy Berthault #fundie cnsnews.com

Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds a modification was introduced. Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised. This was not, however, the case with evolution. The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific.

56 comments

old comment by John

Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.

We abandon theories when objections are raised all the time. When we discovered problems with Newton's Laws, we replaced them with a modified version that took into account the speed of an object relative to an observer.

Your complaint is not that we don't abandon theories. It's that we replace them with something reasonably close, instead of some completely discredited, Bible-based alternative.

Here's a news flash. We've certainly found far more than two or three legitimate objections to the Bible's version. No matter what errors we find in the ToE, we'll never go back to Genesis. That's already been discredited. Why haven't creationists follwed your own advice and abandoned it?

old comment by Dr. Novakaine

Let me give you a quote:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Who said this? Perhaps Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens? Michael Shermer? The Amazing Atheist? Nope, it was Todd Wood, a Young Earth Creationist. He doesn't believe in evolution, but he still doesn't argue the scientific merit of the theory.

You have no grounding for your accusation. Evolution is strong and sound science and nothing you say can change that. You are wrong.

old comment by Semi-Christian

" Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised"

Err. No. Go and have a look at the history behind research into the model of the atom and keep track of how they developed our model of the atom. Scientists did pretty much the same thing there, heck, that is how science works.

" The continuing series of ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific."

This comment is so incorrect that is is laughable. I know trying to get your head around the concept of a scientific theory and how they are refined is different to the normal definition of theory, but at least try.

You could also go check out the concept of aether for light propagation and how that model was actually thrown out.

old comment by peterwilders

A scientific theory attempts to explain observable facts of nature by means of experiments.

A fundamental requirement of expderimental science is firstly that phenomena to be studied must be observable. Then, the object or phenomenon must be repeatable: unrepeatable events concern history. Finally, observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable by experiment.

Despite the 150 years it’s taken to patch over evolution theory’s deficiencies none of the above experimental or empirical criteria have been addressed.
This state of affairs led American biologist and educator Paul Ehrlich to say the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."
The latest experimental results in stratigraphy produce data that refutes the principles upon which the geological time-scale (and ipso facto’ evolution theory) was constructed (www.sediemntology.fr))
It is because standard experimental theories are based on facts that they would rapidly be abandoned if the facts were shown to incorrect. A new theory would have to be formulated.

Peter

old comment by frenchstudent

@peterwilders

Actually, it would be very easy to think of facts that would disprove evolution.

Off the top of my head, I can think of , let's see...God appearing and invoking a bunch of new species, a new species appearing overnight without ancestors, or shadowrun's "goblinisation" when human kids turned into elves, goblins, trolls and such en masse when they hit puberty. (only works if the humanoids are not able to have kids together, though,otherwise you fail to meet the speciation definition)

of course, to disprove that darwinian evolution ever happpened, you'd have to prove that the new species-creating phenomenon was the only one working all along

Good luck with that

btw, when we discovered mitochondrial dna, we could have had a refutation of the ToE if the mitochondrial phenotype group borders had been significantly different than the host phenotypical group borders. They are not.

in plain language: mitochondiae are monocellular organisms that live in symbiosis with our living cells (human and animal). They are basically our cells'power plants(we can't live without them), but they have their own dna code. And when two individuals or species have common ancestors, so do their mitochondriae (since they don't leave our cells). had significant differenczs been found between species' "family trees" and their mitochondriae's, we'd have had to rethink the toe pretty badly.

old comment by Tempus

Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds a modification was introduced.

You mean a scientific theory was actually (le gasp) modified to account for new information? Heaven forbid.

Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.

Not familiar with this whole thing called "science," are you?

The continuing series of ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific

I was right. You really AREN'T familiar with how scientific research works in any field at all. Just the strawman version you've created in your head.

“Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds a modification was introduced.”
No.
No, new observations were made and the theory altered a bit to incorporate those observations. They weren’t objections to the ToE.

"Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.”
Nope.
Theories are abandoned only when better theories are produced, that address everything the old theory did AND something the old theory could not.
For exzmple, the theoretical profile of mankind’s evolution pretty much abandoned Piltdown Man well before it was showin to be a fraud.

"This was not, however, the case with evolution. The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific.”
No, it does not. Science always updates with new observations.
Genesis, on the other hand, doesn’t update. It just is less and less relevant with every discovery in real science.

Guy Berthault #fundie cnsnews.com

56 comments

Confused?