100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + +
→Evolution of whales
::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific that posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)