Why do atheists hate the scientific method?

Question

As a man of science, I wonder why atheists refuse to use the scientific method to prove evolution. The scientific method requires scientists to gather observable, empiracle, and measurable scientific evidence, then test, retest, and test over and over again to make sure they have the correct results. Did I miss the breakthrough where scientists observed evolution occuring? Did I miss the breakthrough where scientists conducted evolution experiments to gain empiricle data? All I hear scientists say is that evolution can take thousands or millions of years, so no experiments can be done to truly verify this theory, so we will just have to take their word for it. If I told everyone cars could fly, showed them statistical "facts" to prove it is possible, then showed them the Jetsons cartoons to convince them that it could occur, but never actually created a flying car, would people believe me that cars could fly? They'd call me an idiot, but that is how the theory of evolution formed.

Also, I'm talking about the type of evolution Darwin wrote about...an animal evolving into an entirely different animal. Don't answer with some garbage about some experiment somewhere that made flies with an extra wing and call that evolution. That is a sad attempt to justify your beliefs.

OK, instead of saying i know nothing, why don't you prove me wrong? enlighten me, convert me. Don't be a child and say I know nothing, that is cowardly.

Answer 1

Laboratory experiments can't be evolution.

Accorking to Dr. Planck, just observing something changes it.

There have been no postulates in Evolution that can be Falsified as Popper dictates.

Einstein, for example, postulated that gravity would bend light and during an eclipse they were able to confirm this by observing a star that wasn't where it was supposed to be.

There are no great postulates I am aware of in evolution.

No one has made a prediction about a future event or about something connected with evolution that is theortical but not yet proven.

IF someone has some postulate, please come forward with them so we can test them, confirm them or falisfy them.

Answer 2

Ok, maybe you are not an 'idiot', as I expect you may have an above average I.Q. But you do misunderstand the scientific method and evolution, and you're using some egregious logical fallacies in your arguments.

The main tool of the scientific method is using objective evidence to determine which hypotheses cannot be true ("falsification"). Groups of related hypotheses that form a coherent framework and can be used to make predictions become theories. If a theory predicts an outcome of an experiment not yet made, and the prediction turns out to be false once the experiment is conducted, then the theory is falsified. Theories that survive this process over an extended time become established. Evolution is an established Theory. It may not seem so to you because you are so immersed in the creationist echo chamber and do not recognize the fallacies of their arguments, and you know even seem to have a personal vested interest in defending and promoting those fallacies. If so, that's too bad. It's a shame to waste intelligence on delusions.

I won't try to defend Evolution specifically here now, there isn't enough space and you'd probably ignore it anyway. I do post one good link below, and if you have any intellectual honest you will spend some time reading it.

Answer 3

No creationist is a man of science. Any "theory" that depends on supernatural intervention is NOT scientific. Period. There's tens of thousands of scientists-including biologists, geologists, astrologists, and anthropologists all over the world that accept evolution as fact. We're supposed to take the word of some church people over tens of thousands of scientists? We're the only country in the world that still has a group of fundamentalists desperately clinging to the outdated fairy tale called "creationism." We're the laughingstock of the world because of it.
YOUR theory doesn't even REQUIRE testing at ALL, let alone RE-testing. Every "argument" a Creationist puts forth to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory is nothing more than a mangling of pseudo-science, outright lies, logical fallacies, exaggerations and misinformation. They also rely on the same, recycled, refuted arguments. There has not been one new Creationist argument recently put forth. You have no persuasive arguments of your own, so you attempt to attack selected particulars of science. It's desperate.
Biologists most certainly HAVE seen species evolve. Not on as grand a scale as what millions of years would entail, but they have observed it in plants, and microscopic life forms such as germs and bacteria. You comparing how the theory of evolution formed to claiming cars can fly based on a Jetson's cartoon is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
There is an astronomical amount of evidence for evolution. Your desperate and baseless argument was lost a long time ago, but you go ahead and remain ignorant if you wish. You're only hurting yourself.
And Gary, that claim that "We do have the fossil record, but amazingly it actually proves the biblical account.....something evolutionists do admit...." is an outright LIE. Evolutionary scientists absolutely do NOT say that fossil records support a Biblical account. If you are going to make that claim, you show me a non-Christian source for that information. That is a typical deceitful claim made by Creationists. It just shows how creationists need to resort to complete lies to make arguments.

Answer 4

I'm not an atheist, but I am a scientist, and a science teacher, and I've got to say you are wrong in many little ways and some big ones.

The theory of evolution has been tested via the scientific method, and that's why it is called a theory, even though many people who lack scientific literacy don't know what that means.

WORST of all, however, is that your post shows a terrible understanding of Darwin's writings, which does him a grave disservice. Darwin postulated that if man could breed varieties by segregating animals, so could the natural world, and that process of speciation has been tested repeatedly and found true. Here are many examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Just because *YOU* don't understand something doesn't make people who do understand it stupid. Just because YOU lack the capacity to understand doesn't mean the capacity doesn't exist in others.

Answer 5

1) Evolution is not atheism.
2) Evolution has been tested and retested.
3) Yes, you missed numerous experiments that showed evolution occurring.
4) You're clearly misinformed or lying when you say, "...no experiments can be done to truly verify this theory."
5) The scientific method requires that experiments be repeatable, not phenomena. There is an enormous amount of science regarding stellar mechanics yet we haven't built a star. We observe stars in all states of development, but we've never built a star.

Answer 6

Well according to your own words "so no experiments can be done to truly verify this theory, so we will just have to take their word for it. If I told everyone cars could fly, showed them statistical "facts" to prove it is possible, then showed them the Jetsons cartoons to convince them that it could occur, but never actually created a flying car, would people believe me that cars could fly?".....that's pretty much the same reason you believe in god isn't it?

If you were a man of science you wouldn't be here asking such ignorant questions either.

**and since some other people would like to quote Stephen Gould, here's another quote for you from him

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

Answer 7

Okay, your questions have made me laugh and at times had my jaw hit the floor in disbelief.
I think it would be a good idea for you to study more on the idea of evolution. Atheists are not the only ones that accept this as a reasonable explanation. And if you are so against evolution, what theories have you come up with that have a better explanation.....please don't say creationism. Because I could then turn your Jetsons' cartoon analogy around using the Bible.

Answer 8

Ummm nice try.

Check the link below and then feel free to apologize.

Transitional fossils are clear evidence of evolution in progress. It is always fun to talk about the missing link and stomp around proclaiming that Evolution is made up. Meanwhile scientists continue to plod along finding more and more tangible evidence for it.

Religion on the other hand relies fully on emotion and feeling. Terrorists feel that they are doing the right thing and feel led by God to kill people. Its not really a good source to base your belief system on.

See if you can spend some time today, really learning about the recent findings surrounding evolution and you may learn some really incredible things. If you keep spending your time trying to disprove it you will miss out.

Answer 9

Your question is typical of the pseudo-scientific false reasoning religious people use to support their pathetically weak arguments. Obviously the comparison you used is not remotely valid. The mechanics of evolution have been tested and observed countless times in labs. It is not necessary to observe it over thousands or millions of years. For example, first-year biology students participate in genetics experiments that fully support evolution, every time. If people are calling you an idiot it's because you say things like this.

Answer 10

You are an idiot.

1. Proof is only done in Math and Logic. In science one provides evidence and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

2. For example experiments are performed observing evolution every semester in college biology labs all over the country. You take a Petrie dish with a bacteria culture, and add antibiotic and observe that over time the bacteria population becomes more resistant to the antibiotic. This is a repeatable test done in thousands of labs every year which observes evolution.

You seem to have a straw-man definition of evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. It is not as you seem to claim a Cat waking up one day and becoming a Dog. Evolution is about populations changing not individual organisms.

Answer 11

Apparently you know very little about science.

"Did I miss the breakthrough where scientists observed evolution occuring?"

Apparently you did. Did you make any effort to learn about it before you posted simply assuming that they had NOT observed it? I think not.

"Did I miss the breakthrough where scientists conducted evolution experiments to gain empiricle data?"

Again, apparently you did.

There have been plenty of experiments done to test the tenets of evolution. We don't "just have to take their word for it" - that's why we have science, so we can test empirical claims.

For a "man of science", you sure have a shallow understanding of the topic. Almost nonexistent understanding, in fact. Go read the alt.talk.origins site for a while, and come back in a few months when you've become a little less poorly-informed about the topic.
======================
Er, and your rather quick backtracking into name-calling doesn't really help you make your case either.