Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one is saying that evolution is a scientific law.Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
Which competing evolutionary theories? Lamarkism is dead, as is ID. Right now, with the evidence from geology, paleontology, and genetics, Darwin's theory in it's modern form is the only theory that explains what we see in life.
So trot out your competing evolutionary theories. And the peer reviewed articles in which they are expounded.
Then you really don't understand that ID really is Darwinism and always has been.
Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
No one is saying that evolution is a scientific law.Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
There should be an exploration, not just a debate, of all plausible scientific theories in science.
ID is not a scientific theory, though. It's a theory, but not a scientific one.
Evolution is not taught as a fact, unless the science teacher is incompetent (which is quite possible in public school). It's taught as a scientific theory, because that's exactly what it is.No one is saying that evolution is a scientific law.Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
There should be an exploration, not just a debate, of all plausible scientific theories in science.
ID is not a scientific theory, though. It's a theory, but not a scientific one.
Regardless of the status of "scientific" theory, it still remains a major alternative to other theories. My problem is that evolution is taught as fact, but has tons of issues with it.
No one is saying that evolution is a scientific law.Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
There should be an exploration, not just a debate, of all plausible scientific theories in science.
ID is not a scientific theory, though. It's a theory, but not a scientific one.
Regardless of the status of "scientific" theory, it still remains a major alternative to other theories. My problem is that evolution is taught as fact, but has tons of issues with it.
It's not the lack of evidence that kills ID as a scientific theory, though.No one is saying that evolution is a scientific law.
There should be an exploration, not just a debate, of all plausible scientific theories in science.
ID is not a scientific theory, though. It's a theory, but not a scientific one.
Regardless of the status of "scientific" theory, it still remains a major alternative to other theories. My problem is that evolution is taught as fact, but has tons of issues with it.
They aren't "issues". They're just things we don't know yet. That's why it's a theory. That doesn't mean an alternate theory with no evidence to back it up is on the same level, just because its proponents call it one.
Regardless of the status of "scientific" theory, it still remains a major alternative to other theories. My problem is that evolution is taught as fact, but has tons of issues with it.
They aren't "issues". They're just things we don't know yet. That's why it's a theory. That doesn't mean an alternate theory with no evidence to back it up is on the same level, just because its proponents call it one.
It's not the lack of evidence that kills ID as a scientific theory, though.
It is the lack of falsifiability that kills it, for one.
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
Actually, there is zero problem with falsifiability. In fact, it is one of the biggest drivers of scientific exploration - design exploration and experiments to discover where a theory might not apply, and adjust as needed.They aren't "issues". They're just things we don't know yet. That's why it's a theory. That doesn't mean an alternate theory with no evidence to back it up is on the same level, just because its proponents call it one.
It's not the lack of evidence that kills ID as a scientific theory, though.
It is the lack of falsifiability that kills it, for one.
True, but in order to combat it, you have to go with what you've got. The problem with falsifiability is that you'll just get, "you didn't do it right" over and over again, since as you say there's really nothing to falsify. The ID true believers will always try to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsophisticated and say that "proves" something.
BTW, this is finally turning into a decent discussion. Thanks
Evolution under intense scrutiny for 100+ years is still not a scientific law, so why shouldnt there be debate? It is still a theory, like the Big Bang, Global Warming, and pretty much all of psycology.
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
So what's next? When we have an earthquake will we have discussions about whether or not it was because the turtle moved? Or was it the elephants?!?!
View attachment 18325
The Turtle and Elephant myth.
Cherry picking posts must feel alot like cherry picking science. It's easy and you don't have to worry about being too wrong because you're ALL wrong. You are a very poor debater.Conservatives fear science.
Conservatives love and embrace science, and in fact profit handsomely from it all of the time.
A flawed premise renders your empty rhetoric rather... empty.
LOL
The true scientist questions everything. Even what we know as irrefutable facts are continually questioned, otherwise there would never be any scientific progress at all.
Then why don't kids in science class debate whether or not the Earth is the center of the solar system?
