Do you know why Charles Darwin's evolution theory is not scientific?

Answer 1

Because it would be most concenient to you if it wasn't scientific?

Sorry, in reality, science is based on repeatable empirical observations that form the evidence for clearly-reasoned, testable theories. Evolution by Natural Selection is scientific (and it's not just "Darwin's evolution theory" - hundreds of thousands of scientists have contributed to the modern Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection).

Answer 2

You can see below the some reason:

'An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.'
The source:Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88

'In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.'
The source:Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39

'Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance…'
The source:Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121

Answer 3

newbie to GWS? If you cant find the trolls funny than ignoring them would be my suggestion. Less frustration and hate this way. btw carrie is not the only person that find the trolls entertaining, and I consider myself intelligent. So would you please stop the insults and grow some thicker skin! At first I was upset by the silly and sometimes hate-full troll droll, but now I find them entertaining, and sometimes funny! I have learned much about gender equality and women's lib on this forum, but I have also learned to thicken my skin, and I am happier for it. ANYWAY to answer your question... I think both are just that "myths" or "theories" and I don't care for either.

Answer 4

The scientific method 1)states a hypothesis for why something happens, and then 2) goes on to prove with experiential evidence why the proposed hypothesis is true.

Darwin hypothesized that evolution occurred with a million tiny, little steps between, say, the first one-celled organism (whose source, by the way, is unknown) all the way up to man as we know him today. Darwin said these subtle changes would have occurred very slowly over millions of years.

That's cool. It means we should have fossil records of each and every step of the evolution process. After all, we have fossils of all known animals, right? Unfortunately, there are NO fossils of these "missing links" between the earliest creatures and the ones we see today.

So Darwin's theory is STILL just a theory that has never been scientifically proven.

Answer 5

This is sort of like asking why the sun doesn't rise in the eastern sky.

Answer 6

It's full of holes and his book on origins never explained the origins of life. He studied birds that had addapted, not evolved, and concluded a banana turned into a dog millions of years ago. Sounds like he wrote a fairy tale to me.

Answer 7

I believe that it is fully consistent with science.

Answer 8

oh yes it is scientific.

Answer 9

Surprise me, go on.

Answer 10

Because its theory.