Hi usafjay ...
Evolution fails to follow the test with experiment portion of the scientific method and relies heavily on observation. My goal is to prove evolution is not science because experimentation is not conducted.
Experimental science is indeed an important part of scientific inquiry, but to claim that it is the only way to make actual scientific discoveries is erroneous. Observational science is also a very important part of scientific inquiry. Without observational science many important sciences simply would not function. For example, ecology is largely observational. Even field experiments don’t truly qualify as strictly following the scientific method. Scientific method requires that only one variable be manipulated; in ecological experiments it is hardly possible to keep all variables constant but the target variable. Other examples would be astronomy, social sciences, epidemiology, geology and economics. Controlled experiments are just not possible within these areas of study and yet they still are still considered sciences. Why?
I want to give you an example of what I think is a really fascinating scientific discovery that illustrates how observational science works.
When an electric current is run through a glass tube containing hydrogen, a blue light is emitted. When this light is passed through a prism, four distinct bands appear: 410.1nm, 434.0nm, 486.1nm and 656.2nm (there are also wavelengths in the ultra-violet and infra-red specra too). Every element has its own unique spectra and can be considered its “fingerprint.” This experiment is repeatable and quantifiable. This is the experimental portion.
Next comes the theoretical portion. The explanation for this phenomenon is that when an atom is excited (by heating with the electric current for instance), the additional energy pushes an electron into a higher energy orbital. When the electron falls back to the lower energy level, it releases that additional energy as a photon. The frequency of the photon depends on the difference in energy between the two states. This photon is what we observe as visible light.
http://en.wikipedia....ission_spectrumOf course, this scenario is purely theoretical. No one has ever observed this actually happening on an atomic level. But the important thing about theoretical explanations is that they need to explain all the known data in the best way possible. It can’t just explain this particular phenomenon, but needs to agree with other phenomenon like chemical bonding, reactivity, etc. When new data is discovered or someone comes up with a theory that better explains the phenomenon, it eventually gets adopted. But for now, this is the best explanation we have for the phenomenon of emission spectrum.
Now we come to possibly the most important part of the scientific process: prediction. In 1868, a French astronomer observed a spectrum line at 587.49nm while observing the spectrum of the chromosphere during a solar eclipse. Initially this was assumed to be sodium which has a spectrum line at 589.3nm. Later that year, another astronomer observed the same spectra line and concluded it was not sodium, but that it must be a yet unknown element and even named this unknown element helium. This was the prediction. Helium was completely unknown and was predicted to exist solely on observed spectral evidence. In 1895, helium was isolated on Earth for the first time and guess what … it had a spectral emission at 587.49nm! The prediction was confirmed.
Experimental science is important in establishing causation. Let’s use cigarette smoking as an example. To do a true experimental study on the effects of cigarette smoke on humans to determine if it causes cancer would be unethical. We can do these types of experiments on laboratory rats and can conclude that “cigarette smoke causes cancer in laboratory rats.” But the best we can do with human studies is epidemiological studies that compare cancer rates of a group of smokers to the rates of a group of non-smokers. The best conclusions we can draw from these studies are “There is a strong correlation between smoking and cancer rates in humans” or “Cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer.” We cannot truly establish cause without an actual controlled experiment. However, after years and years of studies and research there exists such a strong correlation between smoking and cancer that it is quite safe for us to conclude that smoking does cause cancer.
Experimental science has its disadvantages too. Just because you have an experimental study does not mean its conclusions are appropriate. For example, if you want to test a new drug that is targeted for the elderly population (to treat a disease commonly associated with the elderly, such as arthritis) and the test group you use is all in their 20’s that would be an inappropriate experimental study. Experimental studies with inappropriately manipulated parameters happen frequently. That is part of what peer-review is supposed to prevent - other experts in the field should be able to spot when experiments are inappropriately designed.
I realize that I have not provided the evidence for evolution that you wanted. I am not pretending that the evidence for evolution is conclusive, but what I wanted to do is show that there is more to science than experimental science. Observational and theoretical sciences have their place and are very important to scientific discovery. I would agree that some scientists are overzealous and jump to conclusions based on too little evidence or evidence that is very circumstantial. But this does not in any way make observational science not scientific. Science is about finding the best explanation for physical phenomenon using the tools we have available.
HBD
This topic is locked
