FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-04-2002, 07:21 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post another attack on SA's 15 answers to creationist nonsense

Some interesting claims there:

<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-safull.htm#arg01" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-safull.htm#arg01</a>

"We recognize that the definition of “theory” is itself “evolving.” What once was considered a standard textbook definition no longer is viewed as paying sufficient homage to evolutionary theory. Thus, while pro-evolution organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences may not define a theory the way most people do, we ask you to consider the definition given by scientists for scientists. For example, in her widely used Dictionary of Modern Biology, Norah Rudin defined a theory as: “similar to a hypothesis but usually wider in scope. Explanatory theories for sets of phenomena are developed by observation and experimentation” (1997, p. 367). Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines a theory as: “a reasoned explanation of the manner in which something occurs, lacking absolute proof ” (McDonough, 1994, p. 1023, emp. added). This definition is only slightly better than the one found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which says that a theory is an “abstract thought” (p. 749), and uses words like “hypothesis” and “conjecture” as synonyms."

"Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, both evolutionists, stated:

Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349)."

I also note that they use the old thermodynamics argument. Isn't it interesting that they claim evolution isn't testable, then test it by holding it up against thermodynamics and claiming it's falseified?

Read it and weep. Especially not the Quotes from G.G. Simpson. Out of context of course.
tgamble is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.