Difference between revisions of "Evolution and science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| There is little consensus on how evolution occurred | | There is little consensus on how evolution occurred | ||
| − | | | + | | Support for common descent from all scientific academies. |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Exposed piltdown man as a hoax. |
| Scientific method systematically roots out fraud | | Scientific method systematically roots out fraud | ||
|- | |- | ||
Revision as of 14:47, May 22, 2010
Evolution and science have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the theory of evolution is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.
Here is a table of Liberal claims about evolution, contrasted with what science actually knows.
| Evolution | Science |
| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism. | Scientific theories must withstand scrutiny |
| There is little consensus on how evolution occurred | Support for common descent from all scientific academies. |
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax. | Scientific method systematically roots out fraud |
| Metaphysical research program | Makes testable predictions |
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum | Explains irreducible complexity |
| Leads to negative social effects, such as Nazism | Provides positive effects to society |
| Supported almost entirely by liberals and atheists | Doesn't depend on ideology |