Much arguing has occurred about the
Theory of Evolution. However, even in calling it a "theory", you've
bought an assumption. What do I mean? Well, for something to be termed a scientific theory, it has to meet certain
criteria. As a theory,
evolution fails to meet two of the most important ones.
The theory of evolution is not falsifiable
In order to be a valid scientific theory, you have to not only provide the theory, but show how you can be proved wrong. For instance, when Einstein proposed relativity, he also proposed three different tests that could be run to see if he was right or not. These were subsequently done (for example, gravitational lenses, etc). Even in biological circles, genetics has theories which are easily falsifiable, eg. about dominant and recessive genes. But is there an experiment that can be done to prove that evolution is wrong? Has one even been suggested?
The theory of evolution is not predictive
This story is courtesy of a University of Sydney lecturer. He puts up a slide of a beautiful fish found in the Great Barrier Reef ... all tropical colours and flowing fins. And says, "This is an angelfish. It evolved to suit its environment. " He then shows a picture of an eel that is ugly as sin; brown skin, big teeth, a menace. "This is an eel that is found in the same area. Can someone see a problem here? We're using the same theory to explain two completely inconsistent phenomena. This theory has no predictive value". Good scientific theories, e.g. relativity, give you predictiveness. You can ask, "according to the theory, what if I do this?" Similarly, with genetics. You can ask: if I breed a yellow rose and a red rose, what colours and in what proportions will they come out? But evolution, on the other hand, can't be used in that way. Of course, you can retrofit an evolutionary explanation onto things, but that's not science, and it's not the scientific method.
These seem to be obvious points to me; points that any good scientist should have noticed. It just reinforces in my mind the feeling that evolution is accepted religiously and without question today, because some people misguidedly believe it absolves the need for God, and they don't want God around; it creates a problem for materialistic philosophy. If you even begin to suggest that there's something wrong with it as a theory, you are labelled as a philistine or a heretic. It has become sacrilege to question it, making those who hold onto it unquestioningly as dogmatic as the very people they condemn for being creationists. I just view it as scientific hypocrisy.
As an aside; I do agree with natural selection in the sense that a given species adapts to a given situation (e.g. moths changing colour for new environments), but I don't think it explains the diversity of species; nor does it explain the speed of evolution. There is something else going on.
Updates: (brief ones, salient points). The idea that the world is flat is easily falsifiable. For starters, there wouldn't be a
horizon ... you could see right to the edge of the planet if it was flat. Second, you wouldn't see the tops of ships first as they sailed in. These were all things that were better explained by the "earth is spherical" theory. Similarly with
heliocentrism.
neil's w/u is right on the money, as is
e-troon's.
Whoa. Seems like I hit a raw nerve. I seem to be getting downvoted. Just ask yourself: is this a bad writeup or are you downvoting it because you find it disagreeable? If the answer is the former, /msg me and let me know why. I'd like to hear your responses. Even better, node your complaints.