Conservapedia:Is evolution a scientific theory?

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

YES

The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory which explains how purely natural processes brought about the full variety of species of life on Earth, including human beings.

Evolution employs the same methodology as any other science. Tsumetai 09:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

NO

Evolution is not a scientific theory. It is just a guess, wishful thinking or an atheistic ideology.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a scientific fact. It has been shown to happen (As with the Galapagos finches). What is still open for debate is whether it is the process which has led to the diversity of life we see today, or whether God created this diversity. What is no longer debatable is that within this universe (which god may or may not have created,) the phenotype and genotype of populations change from generation to generation in response to changes in their environment. That is evolution. Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, there's no denying that it happens. eyupdutch

The Galapagos finches were not evolution. They were an example of microevolution, which is a tried and true scientific theory. Macroevolution is a shaky hypothesis if anything at all. CPWebmaster 09:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If it contains the word evolution, with regards to a phenotypic or genotypic change within a population in response to an environmental stimulus, then it is evolution as far as this debate goes. If we would like to change the debate to 'Is Macroevolution a scientific thory?' Then so be it. Evolution, as is the subject of this debate, happens. eyupdutch 15:13, 17 April 2007, (BST)

Can you point to a single mechanism of macroevolution that isn't also a mechanism of microevolution? What exactly is the difference? Tsumetai 10:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai is right, macroevolution is merely many processes of microevolution. You can't have macro evolution without it!

What is a Scientific Theory?

If you can clearly define what exactly is meant by a scientific theory, and have that definition accepted by the whole community, then this discussion might, just might, make some sort of sense. However, in the absence of a generally agreed definition of what constitutes a scientific theory, all that will happen is that this discussion will descend into the usual rants from both sides, quoting from Dawkins, AnswersinGenesis etc. and no-one will be any the wiser.--Felix 09:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Note the definition from Conservapedia, which gives FIVE criteria for a scientific theory:

1. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. It is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena.

Evolution is clearly more than just a conjecture or hypothesis, as it is at least plausible, otherwise no-one would have taken it seriously during the past 150 years.

• That is just plain silly. Aristotle's dogmatic ideas about basic physics were taken seriously for 19 centuries but never tested until the early 1600s. --Ed Poor 15:42, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
• I have to agree with Ed. You can't base something's truth on the fact that it's been taken seriously for many years. With that kind of thinking, many might still believe that the Earth is flat.Nsmyth 15:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

2. To be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.

Evolution is falsifiable: if evolution is true, we should not find human remains and dinosaur bones in the same bed. If we do then the theory is wrong and would need to be revised.

• A clear example of "changing the subject" by using different definitions of evolution. What is proven by fossils is Old Earth Creationism or evolution. It does not prove evolution, unless one assumes a priori that supernatural intervention is impossible. (That would require evolutionists to add atheism to their methodological naturalism.) --Ed Poor 15:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

3. Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution as a theory is over 150 years old, has changed over time and has been modified via (eg Dawkins) to be more consistent with data, has so far not been shown to be false, and is able to make predictions, such as the age of a particular fossil, or what will happen in a particular environment if a preditor is removed.

• Part of this one at least is incorrect. You're confusing evolution with ecology. Everyone knows about the fox-rabbit cycle and the wolf-caribou cycle. That has to do with the size of the population, not with "evolution through natural selection" which means new species coming into being. --Ed Poor 15:48, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

4. A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories.

Evolution is still contraversial (see most of the stuff on Conservapedia), it has some experimental support, but it does have a very strong evidential base.

• Put this way, you are correct: evolution is a theory which awaits scientific proof. How can it be tested? And what would its proponents accept as an example of something which observed would disprove it? --Ed Poor 15:49, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

5. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as String Theory.

Evolution started out as being speculative, but is now considered by the majority of the scientific community to be very well confirmed.

I can therefore state categorically that according to the definition of a Scientific Theory as defined within Conservapedia, that Evolution IS a scientific theory, of that there is absolutely no doubt.--Felix 10:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Well done!