Does evolution fit the scientific model?

Question

I always loved science in school and had 0 religious beliefs but the theory seemed to have too many holes and to not follow the scientific method very well.

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives.

This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Answer 1

Yes, evolution is a science.
Needless to say, going through a list of every aspect of the scientific method takes a long time and we don't have room for a book here, so I'll be necessarily brief.
There are sciences that can be done in the lab and those that can't. Chemistry can be done in the lab. Astronomy or cosmology cannot. Just because we can't create stars to study but must hunt for stars and galaxies in the sky does not mean that astronomy isn't science. Evolution is done both in the field and in the lab. It's similar to geology in that way. For the history of the earth, geologists go out and find rocks. For the history of evolution, paleontologists go out and find bones. What's found is then subject to study that is replicable, objective, rigorous, and subject to peer review. But the history of evolution is also studied in the lab through things like DNA analysis. As for current evolution, it is also studied both ways- samples taken from the field but also lab work, particularly with species that breed fast so that many generations may be examined under controlled conditions.
As for prediction- evolution shines here. It tells us that species will continue to adapt (such as the oft cited evolution of bacteria in response to anti-bacterial substances that we use or the evolution of things that make us sick in response to our medicines.) Evolution has made many predictions including that we'd find intermediate species between species we see now and similar species we'd seen in the past. We've found many. See, for instance, the evolution of the whale and how we've found many of the intermediate species that lived when evolution would predict. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Evolution predicts that we won't find complex modern animals at much earlier levels in the fossil record- we don't. It predicts we won't find human and dinosaur fossils together or elephants before the Cambrian period. We don't.

Which gets us to falsfifiability, an important one. If a theory, Karl Popper says, can't be disproved by evidence, at least theoretically, then it isn't science. If there's no way to do tests that could disprove it if it's false then we'd have no way of testing to see if it's true. If any possible finding would support it then why test it? This is a major stumbling block for creationism (the only time I'll compare and contrast the two.) But evolution could be falsified by showing such mixing in the fossil record (it hasn't been done despite many attempts to hold up supposed anomalies such as the discredited Paluxy footprints.) It could be discredited by proving actual irreducible complexity. This also hasn't been done no matter what you hear about Darwin admitting that the eye disproves evolution. For over 150 years this theory has withstood very real opportunities for it to be falsified, it has withstood them.
Which covers the element of being open to repeated experiment by many people. There are thousands of people examining the evidence and finding new evidence as we speak. They can go over the past research by others to try to replicate it, they can examine the evidence of others to see if they reach the same conclusion. Their research is subject to rigorous peer review before publication to see that it meets all scientific standards.
Evolution is tentative- all knowledge in science is subject to further experiment and new data which might throw it into question. This is true of every science. We thus recognize that the germ theory of illness is just a theory, further evidence may prove it wrong. But it's been so well established by now and so well supported that we teach it as fact and we treat it as fact because, although it may be disproved someday it's not close to being disproved yet. Same with evolution.
As for causality, there are a number of factors that cause evolution and these are under intense study. Things like mutation and genetic drift. It isn't enough to say "evolution happens." That wouldn't make it much of a science. The scientists study the causes. To go back to prediction- Darwin wrote without knowing about Mendelian genetics. He observed and came up with a brilliant theory and only after did we learn most of how evolution does happen- he stuck his neck out before we understood the mechanisms for much of evolution and it turns out he was right.

There's no way in this "brief" response to even begin to cover all the issues for why Evolution is science and why the supposed alternatives aren't. Here's a basic primer in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Remember also that most critics of evolution have no idea whatsoever what evolution is. They talk about the Big Bang or the origin of the Earth being Evolution. It isn't. Evolution's a biological theory. What is it? I'll let you read the faq.

It's worth it to take the time to see what scientists actually have to say about evolution and what work is being done in it. Look, for instance, at yesterday's news story about HOXA, that was fascinating. It shows you lab work that very much supports evolutionary theory.

Talkorigins.org is a great place to get started and has enough in there to keep you busy for months.

Answer 2

Have you ever studied Physics? It often requires multiple scientists at multiple locations to make progress. So your argument against evolutionary theory not following scientific method is invalid. In fact most if not all science requires collaborative efforts of many scientists across many disciplines to create viable theorems. You should know this if you've studied any science at all. The idea that A SCIENTIST will prove a theory is pretty far fetched...Now, it has happened but it doesn't happen often enough for your argument to hold water. PEACE!

Answer 3

Evolution does not really fit the scientific model. But, creationism does. As you can possibly see that creationism can able to fit the scientific model accordingly and precisely. You know that creationism is 100% accurate without any fault in it whatsoever. I do know that there is a scientific method behind creationism as a few people might know according to what the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible says about it involving our very universe being created and formed to perfection and created fully mature well over six millenniums ago before I myself was even born. Science itself can fit the creationists' model to a "T" without any fault in it whatsoever!

Answer 4

Your right, evolution has many holes in it. But then so does religion. Look at it this way, every year we discover more and more. We know more now than we did 200 years ago. Back then a plane would be considered magic or something, but now we now its a collection of carefully engineered machines which use the laws of physics to fly. Science explains more and more every day, we just need to keep exploring the possibilities.

Answer 5

Iff your teacher taught evolution properly he told you all the defects as the theory stands. For example, the continued existence of less evolved forms of a species still existing. He did not know about sports. It is just an interesting theory, and in the case of some species such as man and birds may hold water.

Answer 6

Evolution is a result of the scientific method, not the other way around. It is based on looking at our history and early humanoids.

Answer 7

Yes it does - Evolution is science and finding of DNA or genetic engineering provided the first proof of the theory of evolution !

Answer 8

Evolution is falsifiable in dozens of different, independent ways, which is why it is valid science, and it has never been falsified in a single one of those ways.

Answer 9

Evolution has way to many holes to work. Creation actually makes sense when you compare it to what we know, not guess, about the universe.

Answer 10

WELll good freind you try and find several millions of whole skeletons that link generations long dead buried where a jungle has stood for several millions of years and