original article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Yes, you are right. The same is true of creationism. Even the catholic church acknowldges that it is not scientific.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 3:07pm:


Thanks FreeDiver I modified the original link. It works now.

This is more of a philosophical argument. It's not like global warming where it will affect what we actually do. However it should have an impact on how it is taught in high school, and how much credibility people assign to it who aren't familiar with the details.

The article basically argues that the theory of evolution, where it goes beyond natural selection, is not what is traditionally regarded as science and cannot be viewed in the same context as theories that have been rigourously tested by repeatable experiment. The techniques involved in studying and 'verifying' the theory are not the same techniques that have given us modern technology and our powerful understanding of the natural world. It is a theory that has survived the test of time because of it's infinite flexibility and the lack of competing theories, not because it has been subject to the same testing you would normally apply to scientific theories.

The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism. The move is designed to equip children with the knowledge needed to understand the broader public debate. They claim it will help diffuse the bitter battles like thsoe that have arisen in the US, though it may overemphasise the conflict between the two beliefs.

more details in the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791773/

LONDON - British teenagers may soon be debating creationism and intelligent design in religion classes that give equal time to the Darwinists and atheists who reject these views of the world’s origins.

The guidelines, issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, place the issue firmly in religious education class, rather than the science classes where American intelligent-design proponents want it to be handled.

By placing creationist views with those of their critics in religion classes, the curriculum authority could head off the divisive debates that have pitted religion against science in the United States.

“This is a clever way of defusing the issue,” Clifford Longley, a religious affairs commentator, told Reuters.

While endorsing neither side of the science and religion debate, the authority made clear it sees creationism and intelligent design as part of a wider public debate that pupils should be able to understand.

Among the guidelines, applying to children up to the age of 14, is a suggestion that pupils act out the debate by playing the roles of Galileo, Charles Darwin and the current best-selling atheist author Richard Dawkins.

“None of this is compulsory,” the spokesman said. “It is entirely optional and offered as guidance. Our position is that it should be discussed in religious education and not in science.”

State schools in Britain teach religion because Britain has an established Christian church, Anglicanism. Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined religious and scientific leaders in resisting calls for creationism to be taught by itself.

“I can see no reason why we have to regard Darwinism as a holy text that cannot be questioned,” he said. “It is a very good idea to challenge that in religious education. Just teaching children Darwinism doesn’t stretch their minds and give them intellectual hurdles to jump over. There should be lively debate.”

The statements in the article are nonsense. Evolution IS taken by science as a FACT and does have predictive value. The argument about falsification, which is irrelevant to this anyway, harks back to a discredited Karl Popper idea of the 1930s. It was not even accepted then.
Looks to me like the purpose of your site is to sell religion and all things green.
The following link explains it quite well, but Stephen Jay Gould and all the other biologists have also explained it.
.....talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Evolution is science and has been verified. See the main wikipaedia article or any reputable book on the subject. You seem to be trying to use slight of hand. No theory can be 100% verified because all theories are based on past events and the future may be different. Induction cannot prove anything but within the meaning of the word verify, evolution is verified. Even falsification can never be 100%.
You evade the creation issue but I'm sure you are aware that your assertions provide an opportunity for this dangerous notion to enter and I suspect you are happy with this. An earlier post of yours addressed this issue in the context of the teaching of evolution in UK schools. Your post has COMPLETELY misrepresented the issue there. You state "The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism". This is absolutely false. The teaching of evolution is staying firmly within the science classes, with the science teachers, and there is no time to be given to creation in the science classes. The issue you mention recognises that the evolution/creation debate is one which children should be aware of. Accordingly the evolution/creation debate is to be handled within religion classes (which are compulsory in the UK). You are clearly a creationist, whatever you say, but are too feeble to profess it and prefer to attempt to delude the gullible.

fd - you say - " Science is not based on past events" - but it is. Yes it is based on repeatable experiments - therefore it is based on the past. There can be no guarantee of repetition - hence you cannot rely on induction. Just check any Scientific philosophy text - eg Ayer, Carnap, Reichenbach etc. But this is a bit academic and getting away from the point.

No I am not fearful of others opinions and I'm 100% for science not metaphysics. The teaching of creationism really is dangerous - children are susceptable. Creationism comes out of religion and all religious teaching is dangerous - it is pure mumbo jumbo.

And I repeat that your article suggesting that evolution is to be taken out of science teaching in the UK is wrong. You clearly invented this to lend credence to your false assertion about evolution not being science.