I really don't care who perceives scholarly pursuits as an "insult," and I'll add that it demonstrates an anti-scientific attitude.
First, you will need to describe, in detail, what a "scientific theory" is then we can proceed from there. The problem is that if you go to a dictionary, you will find a short, vague definition that is not very useful for complex phenomena such as "evolution." Moreover, in a similar way, it is up to those who put forth the claim to define it precisely. Otherwise, it's an obligation of people such as myself to criticize. What is a "species?" For example, suppose that fertile offspring can sometimes be produced, but not always, depending upon environmental conditions?
I suggest "evolutionary theory" focus on cellular and molecular-level phenomena rather than trying to fit the square peg in the round hole with human linguistic constructs, such as "species." The "species" level may some day be amenable to the scientific method (and it may be today if research was redirected), but as of today, it is best described as "natural history," and there is nothing wrong with it on this level. Elevating phenomena that is not yet amenable (even if it is due to political reasons) to the level of "scientific theory" when it simply is not only damages science, not the critics of science who want to place theology on the same level of science, for instance. "Friends" often do more harm to their "cause" than their "enemies" do. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
