Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
Your answer is indeed one suitable for ninth grade. It completely fails to take into account the findings of twentieth century philosophy of science, such as the rather important (at least for this discussion) refutation of the whole concept of verification by Karl Popper. It is a simple fact that laws of nature are, by logical definition, theories which can never be fully proven.
As for not teaching creationism, that is not a problem at all. Creationism is a non-scientific belief, not a scientific theory. As a scientific theory, it would be laughably weak, since it is essentially untestable and derived solely from mythology rather than any form of empiric data.
Creationism, bluntly put, is a really, really bad theory, which is completely unscientific and extremely weak. Evolution, on the other hand, is a really, really strong theory. Suggesting that the two be taught alongside eachother shows a blatant ignorance of the very nature of science.
|
you are completely misrepresenting Karl Popper said
"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."
Basic scientific method, take your theory, establish a counter theory (the opposite in it's entirety not just in part) prove the counter theory to be false by proving the underlying assumption is wrong. That only way to make a theory into a law.
That was exactly what was done when we established the LAW of constant gravitational force (G).
Creationism (again not biblism) does not specify who did the creating, for example aliens seeding the primordial ooze with a culture which would prosper and EVOLVE (like modern day scientist do with bacterial cultures in a lab) is a valid creationism theory which is 100% compatible with every single piece of empirical data that you use to prove that Darwinism is true.
As for teaching creationism in schools you just proved my point. You don't understand the difference between a law and a theory. Your arguing that your theory should be promoted to the level of a law (because it a "really really strong theory"), without the necessary falsification of it opposite theorem is because the school blindly refuses to teach any alternative theory.
You don't understand the necessity of the counter theory in a scientific proof.