SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
No. It is not a scientific theory. Nor does it describe, as you originally stated, that "whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity."
Now scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are golden. They are as close to being 100% factual as evidence allows. Now as I just mentioned, "cosmic evolution" is not such a theory. In fact, the wikipedia article you just cited, which at the top states the entire thing needs to be rewritten because it does not "comply with Wikipedia's quality standards" defines it as an "intellectual framework." Are you aware of the value or meaning of an "intellectual framework" in science? Worthless. There isn't even a Wikipedia article to define what "intellectual framework" actually is, let alone one that meets basic Wikipedia standards.
So it's just dandy that you managed to find a completely unsupported standard-lacking undefined concept that happens to have the word "evolution" in it, but that doesn't mean it's in any way related to the scientific theory of evolution. Sure, it would certainly be nice if there were a single all encompassing formula that explained everything, which is why there is a name for that, but such a thing is NOT supported by scientific standards or evidence, and thus not accepted as equal to things like gravity or actual evolution by the scientific community.
Let me know if you'd like me to continue pointing out your mistakes, or if you'd like to stop there.
Now scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are golden. They are as close to being 100% factual as evidence allows. Now as I just mentioned, "cosmic evolution" is not such a theory. In fact, the wikipedia article you just cited, which at the top states the entire thing needs to be rewritten because it does not "comply with Wikipedia's quality standards" defines it as an "intellectual framework." Are you aware of the value or meaning of an "intellectual framework" in science? Worthless. There isn't even a Wikipedia article to define what "intellectual framework" actually is, let alone one that meets basic Wikipedia standards.
So it's just dandy that you managed to find a completely unsupported standard-lacking undefined concept that happens to have the word "evolution" in it, but that doesn't mean it's in any way related to the scientific theory of evolution. Sure, it would certainly be nice if there were a single all encompassing formula that explained everything, which is why there is a name for that, but such a thing is NOT supported by scientific standards or evidence, and thus not accepted as equal to things like gravity or actual evolution by the scientific community.
Let me know if you'd like me to continue pointing out your mistakes, or if you'd like to stop there.