Difference between revisions of "Evolution and science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''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.
+
'''Evolution and science''' conflict with each other. [[Evolution]] is clearly [[atheism|atheistic]]<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> and a [[pseudoscience]], easily disproven by numerous [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples to evolution]] that exist. Evolution is not real science because it makes guesses as to what happened in the past, which cannot be observed and is not repeatable, while real, observational science can be observed through repeatable tests. While [[creation science]] is similar to this, the evidence, including in science, in history, and in [[Bible|divine revelation]], points to something other than [[evolution]] and long ages.
  
−
Here is a table of [[Liberal]] claims about [[evolution]], contrasted with what science actually knows.
+
Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years, as derived from the [[Bible]].
  
−
{|border=1 cellpadding=3
+
People who can distinguish real [[science]] from atheistic secular [[junk science]] are increasingly embracing the [[logic]] of [[creation science]].
−
| 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| Support withdrawn from ideas such as Lamarckism.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
 
−
|}
 
  
 +
==See also==
 +
*[[Evolution and creation]]
 +
 +
==References==
 +
 +
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:Evolution]]

Latest revision as of 04:07, March 4, 2017

Evolution and science conflict with each other. Evolution is clearly atheistic[1] and a pseudoscience, easily disproven by numerous counterexamples to evolution that exist. Evolution is not real science because it makes guesses as to what happened in the past, which cannot be observed and is not repeatable, while real, observational science can be observed through repeatable tests. While creation science is similar to this, the evidence, including in science, in history, and in divine revelation, points to something other than evolution and long ages.

Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years, as derived from the Bible.

People who can distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science are increasingly embracing the logic of creation science.

See also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_science&oldid=1314406"