4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 00:45, March 14, 2008
, 00:45, March 14, 2008→Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT)<br />
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT)<br />
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]
Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:
"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."
The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.
As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.
We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.
The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==