That [indirect observation and testing] is a goofy loophole those desperate to condone their faith try to allow. But it is dishonest and false. If you follow the scientific method you must observe something and test. If you test DNA you have a theory on DNA. If you test isotopic decay you can have a theory on isotoipic decay. If you test red shifts you can get a theory on red shifts. You do not test DNA and all of a sudden have evolution.
9 comments
I'm currently observing a man rising from the dead.
It's taking a while. In fact, he's starting to smell a bit.
Having a scientific theory is not that easy, dearie. You have to show evidence for your findings to other scientists, who each want to be the one with the next theory themselves, and they must be able to duplicate your findings.
They didn't test DNA and get evolution. They observed evidence for adaptation through random mutation and natural selection, and called it Evolution. Many people did, Darwin was just the first to get his work acknowledged.
If your God is infallible, and he created us, then why did he create us with junk genes in our DNA, and genes that are turned off even though they would be highly valuable to us?
If you test light by observing it with your eye, all you have is a theory that light is entering your eye. You do not have a theory that some kind of vast, complex universe of planets and people and things exists on the other end of those light rays.
Jeez, fundies really aren't good with interconnected systems and inference, are they? I suppose it's a trait that has to be selected against in order to be a true believer. Everything has to be considered, perhaps even perceived, in total isolation; it's the only way not to notice the contradictions. If you can read a part of the bible telling you to kill people, having already read a part that says you shouldn't kill people, and genuinely, somehow, not infer that the one statement should have some bearing on the other, you're going to struggle to infer things like the connection between DNA and evolution, or radioisotopes and elapsed time, or the speed of light and calculated stellar distances and ages.
In fact, you study compared physiology in the Galapagos, and BANG, you have evolution.
Then you get archeology and genetics to come to the same conclusion by pure facts observation, and you're ready to piss of the religious guys.
What was found in DNA that allows it as a proof of evolution is this:
If this were true, then if we ever discovered the "blueprint" to a species we would find similarities and in close species links we would find nearly identical DNA, it's a prediction made decades before DNA mapping started. And it's proven to be true.
I know it pisses off you fundies as you've never predicted anything correctly, no matter how many predictions are made but science has a very good track record in all fields.
DNA was predicted as existing and showing connections between species.<PERIOD
Wait, so you think we can directly observe DNA sequences, isotopic decay and red shift or absorbtion spectra?
Did everyone suddenly turn into Dr Manhattan and I miss a f***ing memo or something?!
That's like the common claim that science is only good for mathematics and that any inference, and "historical science" (their straw man version) are all very conjectural. So that it's possible to replace history with one's favorite myth.
Excellent comment by Brain in a Jar: "Everything has to be considered, perhaps even perceived, in total isolation; it's the only way not to notice the contradictions." and when that is not possible, incredible pseudoscientific distortions, conspiracy theories and straw men must be used to discredit the contradicting evidence, or untenable cognitive dissonance results.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
