Question for atheists and evolutionists, regarding science?

Question

Evolution is a theory yes, with evidence that we have that is used to formulate the theory, but since it is a scientific theory one could use scientific evidences to disprove the Theory.

Has this ever been done to your satisfaction to make you stop being an evolutionist?

Also, in order for the creationist view to be actual science it would have to be something that would be disproveable. Do you find the evidence "God did it I trust his word" to be something disproveable?

Answer 1

Science though dealing with absolutes has flexibility. Evolution is a partially proved theory but like anything it is based on current evidence and any future evidence can either reinforce the theory or disprove it. However, science does not look at the disproving of a theory as the end, merely it is another stepping stone in building the new theory.

Creationism doesn't have that flexibility.. it is shown to you and you have to believe it as it is without question.

Answer 2

You got it.

Only science can disprove science.

The theory of evolution remains scientifically valid because of the evidence in favor of it. That doesn't mean that a new discovery couldn't change it or turn it on it's head and give us a radically new and scientifically plausible way of understanding life.

Think about how Einstein turned Newton on his head.

Same thing.

Creationism is not, and never will be science. The reason is because of falsifiability. There's no way to prove or disprove God's existence empirically. As such, there's no way to validate or show evidence for creation. Same thing with Intelligent Design theory.

Lastly, don't use the term evolutionist. It's not a political or religious viewpoint. Nobody is radically attached to evolution as a theory or science.

Answer 3

Well evolution has not been disproved as yet where as there are many occasions that some stuff that was suppose to be done by god has been disapproved.

Have I answered u ? because the question is a bit vague - Also do you pick out best answers?

Any how, yes science can be and is opened for disapproving by science - it has happened many a times and we call it learning !

Ex. Initially they thought every thing was made off an Atom - true - but latterly we learnt that even the atom is made out of other stuff like Electrons, Protons and Neutrons - then another came and said in addition you get meesones, positrons etc.

So we are all in a learning curve.

Answer 4

I'm a scientist. First of all, stop calling it evolution. There is the natural continuum, sometimes called evolution, which is the fossil record. Also, do not call adaptation of existing genetic code evolution. Adaptation is the science of breeding and genetics. Mutations of existing code are not evolution either. Thru mutations you can de-evolve (go lower) or in some manner maintain where you are. You can not evolve upward.

Second, is the question, how did the natural continuum happen, in terms of brand new species (bacteria to trees type of changes) and brand new biological functions (seeing, immune system, thinking, arms)?

Either it happened naturally, or there was a creator involved.

Did it happen naturally?

If an archeologist were to excavate Jerusalem, they would find it had evolved over the centuries. Did it evolve naturally, or were there creators involved? The natural creation/evolution of Jerusalem is more likely then the natural creation/evolution of humans, yet, Jerusalem evolved due to creators.

Anyways, it is possible to show that natural self-creation (natural creation of new genetic code leading to new species and functions) is an unrealistic hypothesis. This hypothesis can be tested and shown false. That is why it has not proven in science, and there is so much debate. It is accepted based on faith.

Look, if science could prove that we could come into existence by a natural process, they would have shown it and that would be the end of the story. People fought relativity for awhile until it was proven and now it is accepted. Natural biological creation is not totally accepted, because, it has not been proven.

However, for scientists to be scientists, they have to be politically correct and pay homage to it and accept it.

However, if they did their job and tested the hypothesis, they would find it would fail.

Answer 5

I like your question - it seems fairly balanced.

Indeed the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. It seems to fit the evidence pretty well, and science continues to find new evidence to support it. It is not without it's holes, but that doesn't disprove it either. Since it is science, it will continue to be evaluated, modified, and would even be discarded if a better theory with better evidence surfaced. But so far, the evidence continues to support it better than any other idea.

Proving God seems tricky, by the science method. But, religion doesn't require proof: it requires faith. So disproving God is difficult as well, since no one has really defined the tests and evidence that would be acceptable to everyone that would prove God one way or the other.

It seems the only way to really prove God is if God proves himself to you. That is the technical meaning of 'revelation'.

Answer 6

Let's look at your question a little closer.

A theory is proposed explanation capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Has this theory been disproved? No, from a scientific basis it has not.

Your question regarding "God did it trust his word" makes an assumption that God exists. Can this be tested through experiment? Can this be observed?

Obviously the experiments to prove God have all failed, so has any observation. Interestingly this is the logical conclusion of Atheists. If every experiment and observation concludes he does not exist since the beginning of mankind, then one would logically conclude God does not exist. To believe otherwise is folly.

Answer 7

There is no Scientific evidence. Science CANNOT PROVE that God (or whatever) exists. THERE! Disproved. there is no god.....or Heaven or Hell. Just a 'theory' of same...unless of course anyone KNOWS someone who's been to either place

Answer 8

It seems perplexing to me that evolutionists, generally, hold the belief that God has no hand in evolution. Without a divine intercessor, it doesn't seem to be the least bit logical that a biological change would occur. The notion that science and God are mutually exclusive is ridiculously naive, especially considering the education level of those that tend to hold that belief. Open your mind. That's why God gave you one.

Answer 9

I like to study this area very much! I am an creationist however, I like science and feel Ken Ham and others like him to be very interesting.
By the way science is not defined by the ability to be disproved, so your argument is flawed.

Answer 10

Obviously you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what science is.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious belief.