What Does That Imply, If Every Answer Evolutionists Can Come Up With:"We Don't Know Yet"?

Question

When forced into a corner, evolutionists resort to the claim "Even if scientific discoveries do not confirm the theory of evolution today, such developments will take place in the future." The basic starting point here is evolutionists' admission of defeat in the scientific arena. Reading between the lines, we can translate as follows: "Yes, we defenders of the theory of evolution admit that the discoveries of modern science do not support us. For that reason, we can see no alternative but to refer the matter to the future."
Yet science does not function by such logic. A scientist does not first of all blindly devote himself to a theory, hoping that one day the evidence to prove that theory will emerge. Science examines the available evidence and draws conclusions from it. That is why scientists should accept the "design," or the fact of creation in other words, which scientific discoveries have proved.

Answer 1

No one suggests a theory without some minimal proof. In the case of Darwin, he was so taken up with the idea of coming up with an alternate to Creationism, that he proposed a Theory with made up proof that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If other theories don't hold good they are dumped. Not evolution. If evolution goes, evolutionists have nothing to fall back on. Poor them. So they hold on to this idea that they will be proven right one day. All I can say is dream on people and hope you don't evolve into something else (sic)

Answer 2

Well, I think you may have answered your own quetsion, But I'll give it a shot.

Since Science is ever evolving, then so too, is the answers it has to our existence. Therefore, Evolutions can feel safe in saying that there will be proof in the future- because, at some point, some scientise will find evidence that points more towards the evolution theory again.

While it is true that Scientists don't blindly devote themselves to a theory, just because someone is an evolutionist, doesn't mean they are a scientist- it is more that theysupport what science has found that evidences what they believe.

They say they don't know yet, when they are pressed to explain things that are as of yet unexplainable outside of the Creator Theory.

Answer 3

It implies that there is a belief in the process of discovery and an admission that not everything is known. If you're trying to imply that there is a process of faith in a tenable theory involved here, in a sense you're right on that point. What is the problem with that? I see more of a problem in insisting that one knows all the answers and in having faith in a completely untenable theory. Even the whole concept of intelligent design does not imply a crerator in the sense of a controlling personality. At best, it can only imply that there is a certain order to the way things arrange themselves. A bell curve is a good example. It is simply stating the obvious that form follows function, but it foes not imply a controlling personality.
I find this interminable argument unbearable. I practice my religion. It does not require me to see the world through the latest scientific insights of the bronze age or whenever the different scriptures were composed. Physical science cannot, however assail the discoveries that have been made into consciousness and are documented in these scriptures. They are different fields.

Answer 4

Your problem is that you don't understand how science works. The scientific method starts with observations. It then formulates a hypothesis to explain the observations. A good hypothesis is one that makes predictions that can be tested. Additional data is collected to test the predictions. If the data supports the predictions, then the hypothesis may be raised to the level of a theory. We will keep collecting data (making observations) to keep testing the theory. If, in this process, data comes in that disproves the theory, then scientists will search for the reason of the error, formulate a new hypothesis to correct for the error, and then test the new hypothesis. The longer a theory goes with out being disproved, the more weight we give it. If a theory goes long enough without being disproved, then it will be elevated to the level of a Law and people will stop trying to disprove it.

Now then, note what I did not write in the above paragraph. I never wrote that science proves anything. This is because science proves NOTHING. By the rules of logic, in order to prove something to be true, you have to test it in every possible situation. All science can do is disprove a theory. All it takes to disprove something is to show one instance in which it is wrong. Thus it is much easier to disprove than it is to prove. So, science seeks to disprove theories. As long as we can't disprove them we accept them as valid. (BTW, this is why in a court of law the standard for guilt is proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. It is possible that it was and extraterrestrial that committed the crime rather than the defendant, but is it reasonable to believe that?)

So, getting back to evolution, if you want to prove evolution, you would have to find a fossil for every single individual in the evolutionary chain and prove that you have them all. This is something that would be impossible to do because fossils are actually quite rare. Few organisms are preserved as fossils. So, we will never be able to follow a complete chain of evolution from one species to another. The most that you can do is present evidence that disproves evolution. Now, evidence has been presented that has disproved certain connections that people have tried to make in evolutionary chains, but there has been no evidence presented that disproves the theory of evolution as a whole. So, it is accepted by the scientific community in general as a valid theory that explains how life has changed over time.

Personally, I don't see evolution and the Bible as being mutually exclusive. If you accept the creation story as being an allegory, then it becomes possible to accept evolution as being a possible tool by which God did the work of creation.

Answer 5

Your false assumption is that saying they don't have ALL the answers is equivalent to saying they don't have ANY answers.

The discoveries of modern science do, in fact, support evolution. Otherwise, it would not qualify as a theory. What modern science doesn't do is tell us exactly how evolution works. However, it is reasonable, given current information and evidence, that such information will become available in the future.

Answer 6

Firstly, none of us have actualyl said the entire theory is not supported, many of the key factors have been shown to stand up to modern science.

Secondly, how has Creationism been proved in anyway, shape or form? Could you please source us some of this obviously ground-breaking work?

Please. Your argument is dying. Firstly, you throw out an entire theory because one point has not got solid proof, then you expect us to accept Creationsim as a FACT? Pathetic argument

Answer 7

It means that evolution is honest about what it can prove to date and what it cannot.

creaitonism has no such humility or honesty.


It also means that science continues to seek answers,

it doesn't say:

"walll gooolllly gee.. This science stuff is complicated.... let's just say god did it and go drink some budweiser."


Creationism is for intellectually lazy people who don't have what it takes to join the long, hard search for real answers.

Answer 8

If evolutionists are ever "forced ito a corner" its because they are using a gun in a knife battle. It is hard to argue with whackjobs. Kind of like when a whacked-out homeless person tries to engage me in conversation - what can I say?

Answer 9

Which scientific discoveries have proved creationism? Why do you keep asserting things with no evidence to back up your claims? And that quotation you cited is definitely NOT an admission of defeat...that's just your interpretation...so who died and left you in charge?

Answer 10

In your case, they say "We don't know yet" as an easy way out of talking to an idiot. When you start out with a conclusion, there is nothing left to say. At least you have other idiots with whom you can talk and agree.