Last modified on February 26, 2009, at 14:41

Talk:Exact sciences

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DinsdaleP (Talk | contribs) at 14:41, February 26, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Return to "Exact sciences" page.

Witnessing Evolution

Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --DinsdaleP 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

By evolution, I mean the theory of evolution through natural selection, which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.
Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which aspects of evolution we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see microevolution). --Ed Poor Talk 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps it was just a contemporary witnessing of adaptation - an ability it's designer gave it to deal with differing environmental contexts. --Qwestor Talk 11:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Creation Science

Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --JoshuaStanley 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, as well as baraminology. WesleySHello! 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --DinsdaleP 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)


I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --DinsdaleP 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)