🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:38:40 GMT, "Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>Science has a formal structure of precedence in its range of - hypothesis,
>theory, law - 

Theory outranks law. 

and for any "hypothesis" to acquire the status of "theory" it
>must have much supporting evidence.  To become a "law" (in the scientific
>sense) it must have even more, and be capable of proof in a laboratory or
>field test.  That "the theory of biological evolution" is *only* a theory is 

It isn't *only* a theory.  It is Wow!  a theory!  as high as anything
gets in science.


>because it cannot, AS A WHOLE, be proved/tested in a laboratory, etc.  

Which goes for all broad theories.  Ever heard of quantum theory? 

This
>doesn't mean it has no evidence to support it.
>In Religion, on the other hand, any belief can become a dogma once it has
>achieved priestly imprimatur; thenceforth it is sacred and not to be
>questioned.  Creationism is a pre-scientific guess 

non-scientific ongoing insistence, trying hard to become
post-scientific through the defeat of science. 

as to how the universe
>and humans originated, has no supporting evidence, 

and more than makes up for this politically with supporting rhetoric.

It is not about science, it is about a desire to defeat science. 

and differs according to
>which religion you belong to. 

>Biological Evolution is a mechanical, haphazard process, according to which
>some chemical formulas achieved the ability to reproduce themselves (thus
>becoming "life" forms), and this led to increasing complexity of structure,
>until it produced humans and other organisms.  "The survival of the fittest"
>in adaptation to environment, by the process of "natural selection", sums up
>the theory of biological evolution.  

No it doesn't.  Try posting just this part in talk.origins to get an
earfull! 


There's no moral argument involved - a
>tapeworm has the same "right" to exist, as the most virtuous human.  Indeed,
>Humans themselves are only an accident of Nature; with our 70 vestigial
>parts, we are a defective organism, and our disproportionate cerebral
>cortex, based on primitive instincts, almost guarantees our extinction in a
>decade or so.  The Earth will then be left to insects and some few remaining
>complex animals and plants which have happened to survive our predation in a
>polluted planet.
>"God" himself has evolved - from (1) primitive Naturism, through
>(2) Animism, to
>(3) Polytheism (when gods and goddesses thrived); declining to -
>(4) Monotheism, as a result of the "jealous god" tribal deity, to
>(5) Atheism of recent times.   <--->  dream on.
>All gods and goddesses are memory projections of our feared authoritarian
>ancestors (tribal elders), with "God" being an attenuated, magnified, image,
>imposed on the cosmos.
>=========================
>"Jabriol" <jabriol@Batosai.jp> wrote in message
>news:40734785_1@news.athenanews.com...
>>
>> On  6-Apr-2004, "Zachriel" <spam@zachriel.com> wrote:
>>
>> >  And the scientifically consistent alternative theory is what exactly?
>> > >
>> > > which one would you accept?
>> >
>> > To be called a scientific theory it must be validated by the scientific
>> > method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. If you
>> > can
>> > propose an alternative theory that is consistent with the evidence and
>> > capable of making valid predictions of future observations, then please
>> > do.
>>
>> and how does evolution as the origin of man pass the above?


dunk