Of course evolution is not scientific according to Karl Popper's definition, but even worse it contradicts several laws of science, so not only is it unscientific, it is an anathema to genuine science.Since Karl Popper implied that the Theory of Evolution is not open to the possiblity of being proven false?
Are you Hugo renamed?
You seem to be asking the same type of idiotic questions that he did.
Added: In any case, all you are doing is giving a platform to the creationist ignoramuses who are showing off their abysmal ignorance about evolution, such as the one who quoted Etienne Gilson, a philosopher of theology, long dead, who made nonsensical philosophical statements about evolution and showed he understood absolutely nothing about evolution or science.
Then there's the other ignoramus answerer who said that evolution violates laws of science. I presume he's referring to the laws of thermodynamics, which is what creationists usually refer to in making that statement. Those laws deal with the dynamics of energy and in no way disprove evolution.
Creationists should learn about real science instead of getting their arguments from the lying promoters of creationism.
By the way, Popper (who also was a philosopher, not a scientist), changed his mind about the theory of evolution. He later said ';When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. ';
Another by the way. Evolution would be proved false if, as has been said, a fossil rabbit (or a fossil of any other modern species) were to be found in Cambrian strata. That is just one example of many possibilities that would prove evolution false if it were, in fact, false. The fact is there has not been found one single thing that proves evolution false--creationist lies notwithstanding.
You didn't understand Popper at all. Theories don't exist to make provability possible.
Evolution's problems are of a logical nature. Namely tautologies.
1) Tautology about what a species is.
I quote a great philosopher of science Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again (1971)
';A more accurate title for Darwin’s book, according to Gilson, would be the Origin of Varieties. Darwin’s use of the word “species,” however, is contradictory. “To say that species are fixed,” Gilson writes, “is tautology; to say that they change is to say that they do not exist, hy does Darwin obstinately say that they transform themselves, rather than saying simply that they do not exist?” (pp. 140-1:)';
2) The tautology of survival of the fittest.
Well, whatever survives is declared the fittest. Absurd.
So, these can't be proven false BECAUSE THEY ARE TAUTOLOGIES.
The theory of Evolution is false. If we look at Messenger DNA and the complexity of it. Many former evolutionists have changed their minds. It is so complex it seems to be machine like and by design.
Interesting to note these same people still deny God! Agenda?
yeah well...
asking ';why are there still monkeys'; is by far the most idiotic question when it comes to evolution.
I should think that it actually implies that these communistic banana trees should go back to the country they come from and stop stealing my damn taxes!!!!!!!!
He actually meant just the opposite of what you're saying.
That is what the monkey Illuminati want you to think.
This question stinks, but I guess that is what you were going for.
I *dare* you to make less sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment