This is the latest comment by a gentlemen named Thomas Root on the facebook page of Amanda Read: Amanda's Facebook page
So correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but a summary of your argument seems to be that:And being so timid about sharing my thoughts this is my reply:
"The theory of evolution is not science because it's not falsifiable. It's not falsifiable because every time contradictory evidence is presented, the theory has been modified to suit the new evidence."
Is ... that more or less correct? Because it seems like modifying the theory when new evidence is present is *exactly* how science works and how faith doesn't work.
On the other hand, your view of creationism is that it is science despite the fact that it incorporates a *whale* of an "unknown process" (which you say can't be part of the refinement of ). Or do you claim to know the process by which your God created the universe?
While we're at it, here are some questions I've never had a creationist adequately answer. Mind taking a crack at them?
What predictions can creationism make without presuming to know the mind of the creator?
When did the flood happen and how old is the earth (please provide evidence, not just claims)?
Seems Thomas Root, it would do you good to read the Book of Job in the Bible. God challenged him with such questions. It might help you to see the response he finally got from God.
I will let Dr. Wile speak for himself but even as a elementary certified teacher, tutor and mom I get the fact that a hypothesis is present by an inquiring mind scientist.
Scientist in a quest to understand nature, the world around him, and even bigger questions... sets forth a path of research to test his hunch. If the research fails then his hypothesis is false and he must begin again with a few options 1) repeating the research to see if the first one had error, 2) restating the hypothesis and coming up with a new angle of research/investigation, or 3) ditching his original hypothesis and coming up with a new possible explanation.
Once a hypothesis/theory has been proven false. It is forever false and must begin the scientific process again. It is quite elementary.
Nothing is ever proved by science, because the theory or even something elevated to fact/law due to repeated experimentation that verifies the statement is always one research/experiment away from being false. True Scientist build off of the facts of the previous scientist and don't cling to theories that have been shown to be false by one or more scientific experiments that can be effectively reproduced over and over.
One successful experiment that seems to show a hypothesis to be truthful begs for more experimentation insure its validity, at least up to the observable knowledge that we have at this point and time.
Newton's law of gravity started once as a thought. It was tested not only by Newton but scientist after scientist and continues to be open to new hypothesis and experimentation. If any one experiment (that can be repeated for validity) shows the law of gravity is really not what science has perceived it to be all these years, it would no longer be a scientific law or truth.
Very few scientific ideas ever make it to law, because it must be verifiable through umpteen experiments and hold up to all scrutiny.
Any theory that is clung to as empirical truth/ absolute fact is indeed no longer science but ideology and would be better served in another field of study such as philosophy. Truly evolution and Darwinian assumptions fall much more gracefully into a philosophical study, just as Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and many more creative thinkers that are highly respected.
The plan truth that many professors of so-called science doesn't want to admit is that evolution is not truly scientific - it can not hold up to valid research and testing. These proponents would better serve humanity if they moved to the correct department of education and left true science to the inquiring, investigative, open-minded Scientist that truly set up scientific theory investigations to learn and challenge the status quo.
So yes, evolution has repeated been proven false by many observations and experimentation on the level of macro-mutation. While micro-mutations and adaptations due exist this does not quantify all volumes of beliefs in evolution to be truth. Evolution is a philosophical belief that is much closer to a religious doctrine, and should be studied as such, and therefore removed from science textbooks and departments ... if only left as a small by-note of how it led many people astray thinking they were scientist but in fact they were philosophers caught trying to defend a theory that had already been found false on so many levels.
Dr. Wile might have a greater insight or explanation than I because I am only a layperson and not a scientist. I am a student of learning, nothing more and nothing less.