Any person or scientist who claims to pursue truth has to take notice of the astounding research available. Evolution will be seen as the shamanism of age.
August 30, 2011
-
I don’t think macroevolution is scientific
Neither is math, but we still use that. Macroevolution isn’t unscientific, it’s non-scientific.
Now I’m going by a definition of science that says something must be observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable to be science.
There are lots of fossils with lots of transitional forms, and IIRC there’s even a way to trace DNA mutations back to earlier life forms.
However, macroevolution can’t be observed since it takes so long.
It can’t be tested since it can’t even be observed, and it’s definitely not repeatable.
It’s also not falsifiable. For example, the evolution narrative can explain the fossil record and can explain the relative layering of fossils by epoch. The creation narrative can explain why fossils are in the dirt (the flood), but can’t explain why they are layered in a way that corresponds to the evolutionary narrative.
However, creationists have found other pieces of evidence such as an ichthyosaur who was fossilized while giving birth, and tree trunks which traverse multiple layers. While I agree this bolsters evidence for a flood, it doesn’t, contrary to creationist claims, weaken the evolutionist case very much. Since the fossils are roughly layered, evidence that later animals in the evolutionary progression got buried later.
Mudslides can be chaotic, and some animals can find themselves in layers below animals which existed 100,000 years ago according to the evolutionary narrative.
Now I obviously endorse the evolutionary narrative, but it’s just that, a narrative, an operating theory with which science is conducted. But I don’t think it’s science.
Hopefully people will realize this and recognize the limits of science and recognize how many operational assumptions everyone makes, and how these differing assumptions result in facts being interpreted differently and weighed differently.
Until we can direct-process the cosmic foam, there will always be that window of non-scientific theorizing. Those who fail to recognize this are colossal boobs.
And that is just it, how much good science is missed in a gamed bureaucratic forum, where open ideaologies are rejected.
All theories must be examined. Not just the ones that are popular, one feels strongly about, or have the most money behind them.
