1,410
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 6:
Line 6: − + + − − <!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance: a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> --> −
Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory (view source)
Revision as of 04:54, May 21, 2007
, 04:54, May 21, 2007→Falsifiability: removing spurious comma
Evolutionary proponents assert, however, that evolution is falsifiable. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.
Evolutionary proponents assert, however, that evolution is falsifiable. Most famously the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.
In 1980, Popper responded, to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>
In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>
With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter to conclusion, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>
With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter to conclusion, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>
<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance: a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>