Have you noticed that there are all of these new theories about evolution? But my question is a simple yes or no response (but I bet it is not left at that).. Has anyone ever seen a report that says that when they (evolutionists) were disproven about any particular topic, they made a statement that said they were wrong or had erroneous information?
2006-10-13 05:01:02 · 8 answers · asked by 57chevy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Disproving things is as much the basis of science as proving things. Statements of error are common. The question is whether the disproof you are citing holds up under scientific scrutiny, not just enough to convince you, but enough to convince the broader spectrum of biologists.
I will say that I have never once seen a believer in intelligent design admit to an error in judgment in spite of the overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory predicts and explains issues that arise in biological development.
2006-10-13 05:13:14 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scientists don't have to say they're wrong -- we suppose everything is wrong. We learn by trying to disprove everything. That is why experimentation is the primary mode of sceintific learning.
"I hypothesize chemical XYZ will help this ABC plant grow... so how do I prove it wrong? I take two similiar ABC plants, put them in identical situations, and apply XYZ to one. If they grow the same, or the XYZ+ABC plant is smaller, my hypothesis is wrong."
I notice that XYZ seems to be herbicidal. "I hypothesize that XYZ is herbicidal because of its effect on plant ABC. How can I prove this wrong? Apply XYZ to both plants ABC and BCD."
Science presupposes it is wrong. Every science book carries with it this presupposition.
Why then a need to admit when we're wrong?
-------
added:
This is why the belief in a god is unscientific.
"I hypothesize that there is a deity of some form. How do I disprove this? I would need to have an effect that happens differently and observably in the presence and absence of deity. I will need an environment then where the divine is present and an environment where the divine is not present. Hmmmm... suppose there is a deity -- how do I get it to vacate an area? Suppose there isn't a deity -- how do I get one to be present in an area? What observable effect could possibly happen differently in such a set up? Nothing conceivable. Therefore, the existence of a deity is unknowable."
2006-10-13 05:08:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not a simple yes or no question. Science is not a static belief system as is religion. There will always be new new information and discoveries and some things that are believed to be true will be shown to be not true. But the basic theory of evolution is true and demonstrable.
2006-10-13 05:07:59 · answer #3 · answered by October 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by "any particular topic"? If an evolutionist makes an incorrect statement about geography, that doesn't invalidate evolution.
2006-10-13 05:05:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
once you have self assurance that evolution incorporates a monkey turning out to be a guy, or a fish turning out to be a horse, and don't understand what evolution genuinely represents, that is challenge-free to work out the kind you need to have self assurance that evolution is ridiculous. i think of it quite is on your superb pastime to do a splash prognosis, and because you're already on the internet, why no longer wikipedia? Edit: What I pronounced above is addressed to the aforementioned creationists, who use the straw-guy arguments you're accusing them of. And it is so actual and so difficult. How do you argue with somebody who retains changing the challenge?
2016-10-19 08:06:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course any scientist will admit his mistake when confronted with scientifically-derived proof that invalidates his theories.
That is what makes science more reliable than theology.
2006-10-13 05:05:59 · answer #6 · answered by XYZ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
scientists are occasionally wrong, and rightfully so. science is all about progression. it's in admitting their mistakes and ignorance that they are able to further their knowledge and understanding.
2006-10-13 05:09:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I can't recall ever reading one.
2006-10-13 05:05:47 · answer #8 · answered by creationrocks2006 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋