Topic: Evolution
Quote: What is science?\nThe first place to start is with a definition of science. Many exist, but most of them come down to something like, \xe2\x80\x9cIf something is scientific, it is observable and testable (i.e., able to be repeated).\xe2\x80\x9d\nNow it might surprise readers without a scientific background to hear me say that very few scientists have any real idea what science is. However, if you are a scientist you will probably acknowledge the truth of this seemingly nonsensical statement. In my undergraduate studies and postgraduate research, I can\xe2\x80\x99t ever recall anyone telling me what science is (and isn\xe2\x80\x99t!), showing me what it is, or providing me with an explanation of how it operates. If you are studying science or working with scientists and you doubt me, I challenge you to ask them for a definition of what is \xe2\x80\x9cscientific.\xe2\x80\x9d After a pause, most of them would not be able to give an answer much deeper than \xe2\x80\x9cIt is what scientists do.\xe2\x80\x9d\nAs an undergraduate, I was taught to remember, not to think. Sure, I was given tools which I could use to think, but I wasn\xe2\x80\x99t actually taught to think. Then, as a Ph.D. researcher I worked in a very narrow field (as do all Ph.D. researchers), and so the breadth of a question like \xe2\x80\x9cWhat is the definition of scientific?\xe2\x80\x9d was absolutely irrelevant to me. Upon graduation and working as a research scientist for 17 years and as a leader of other scientists, the question has never arisen, nor apparently needed to have been asked. My point is that most scientists don\xe2\x80\x99t really know what is or isn\xe2\x80\x99t scientific, because it rarely affects what they do.\nWhy make a big deal of this? The reason is because creation and evolution are actually both outside the realms of science and, to know this, you need to know what science is\xe2\x80\x94and as we have seen, most scientists don\xe2\x80\x99t.\nNeither \xe2\x80\x9cprocess\xe2\x80\x9d is currently observable, testable or repeatable. Please note that when speaking of evolution, I am talking of the appearance of new (not rearranged) genetic information leading to greater and greater complexity of genetic information. I am also talking about the appearance of life starting from inanimate chemicals. When talking about evolution, I am not speaking of natural selection, which leads to a reduction in genetic information in those species. Creationists, of course, have not the slightest problem with natural selection. After all, it has been practiced by farmers for centuries in their breeding of plants and animals through selecting preferred offspring and mating or propagating these. Anyway, the theory of natural selection was described by creation-believing scientists long before Darwin boarded the Beagle.
Response: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...sd/grocott.asp\nSo who decides what is or isn't science? If what was taught in science classes was no more controversial than the freezing point of water or the melting point of lead, then maybe it could be defined in a way that everyone could agree on. But when it gets into theories and hypothesis about one time events that happened thousands, or billions of years ago, its time to set aside what we think science is, and ask ourselves what science class is trying to accomplish. If we take students to a theoretic area where we suspect there is more to be discovered, isn't it time to consider teaching them HOW to think, not WHAT to think? Can we do that by ruling an entire concept out, in a society that exercises free inquiry and advocates progress? Every subject taught in school is different, but science is, (and has to be) about so much more than teaching prior knowledge.\n2) Let's look at the dictionary.com definition of religion;\n
1.28571