Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'scientific validity'.
Found 1 result
Its become increasingly clear that many evolutionists are not concerned with scientific validity or with the truth. The reason I state such a hefty claim is because from discussions here and things I see on the internet, most people merely assert evolution as a fact of life without actually demonstrating it is. When asked for a demonstration they may cite things like, speciation, antibiotic resistance, DNA similarity, even the field of medicine (though medicine has no relationship to evolution at all, and would still exist without evolution, indeed it existed before Darwin was born). The sad thing with these examples is that they are all based on the assumption of "evolution did it". The fact of the matter is that there is no way to verify these claims. If I walked up to you and said I can fly, you'd ask for verification of such a claim, however the same cannot be said for evolution. Asking for verification of evolution is basically taboo to some ardent evolutionists, you must believe in it fully, you must put your blind devoted faith towards it.You are not allowed to question or ponder on evolution, nor consider the details, the details do not matter, "evolution did it" and that is all you need to know. But is it really? Does suppressing opposition really make for a compelling case for something claimed to be scientific? Scientific inquiry allows, actually stimulates, skepticism in any hypothesis or claim and encourages scientists to test the claim to ensure its validity. Additionally from testing, new information may be found as to the details of the claim, its limits and strengths. THIS is how science operates, not by suppressing opposition. I challenge the evolutionist to provide verification of their claims of "evolution as a fact". By verification I mean scientific / empirical experimentation which has been done, observations leading to a hypothesis or assumptions are not valid forms of verification.