Difference between revisions of "Evolution and science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Explains irreducible complexity | | Explains irreducible complexity | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | Helping in fight against drug resistance disease |
| Provides positive effects to society | | Provides positive effects to society | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Supported almost entirely | + | | Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method |
| Doesn't depend on ideology | | Doesn't depend on ideology | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 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| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.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 |
| Support for common descent from all scientific academies. | Scientific theories must command the consensus of the scientific community. |
| Exposed piltdown man as a hoax. | Scientific method systematically roots out fraud |
| Every new fossil discovered tests evolution. | Makes testable predictions |
| Cannot explain irreducible complexity, such as bacterial flagellum | Explains irreducible complexity |
| Helping in fight against drug resistance disease | Provides positive effects to society |
| Supported almost entirely adherents to the scientific method | Doesn't depend on ideology |