Science is not perfect. It’s often misused; it’s only a tool, but it’s the best tool we have. Self-correcting , ever changing, applicable to everything: with this tool, we vanquish the impossible. (Carl Sagan)
Thinking about the musings from DAY 79: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – The Theory Of Evolution, Is The Science Really Settled?….
I would submit to that there is a strong case to be made that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution conflicts with Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics. I would further submit to you that perhaps this fact alone would explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a…law, while the Theory of Evolution…is still just a theory…
And has remained a theory for over 160 years and counting.
According to Merriam-Webster, there are 7 conditions that would qualify as to what the definition of science is: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science).
Of the seven, 3 stood out the most:
1) “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method”;
2) “something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge” and;
3) “the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding”.
I would submit to you that in order for the Theory of Evolution to qualify under the definition of the term ‘science’, then the Theory of Evolution would have to qualify and be able to be ‘tested through scientific method’…’learned like systematized knowledge’…and helping someone to be able to distinguish between ‘knowledge…from ignorance or misunderstanding’.
How else would someone be able to justify the Theory of Evolution as science if it does not meet all of those conditions?
I began the process of helping us to determine if the Theory of Evolution qualifies as science in DAY 79: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – The Theory Of Evolution, Is The Science Really Settled? with 6 compelling questions that cannot be answered scientifically with this theory.
There are more questions that need to be asked.
How does a scientist, (or non-scientist), who supports the Theory of Evolution, prove scientifically, the following:
1) Which evolved first in any species: the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, and the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice?
1A) How long did the above-mentioned that evolved first, work without the others?
2) Which evolved first in any species: the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
2A) How long did the above-mentioned that evolved first, work without the other?
3) Which evolved first in any species: the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
3A) How long did the above-mentioned that evolved first, work without the others?
4) Which evolved first, flowers or the insects that live on and pollinate the flowers?
4A) How long did the above-mentioned that evolved first, work without the other?
5) Which evolved first in any species: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
5A) How long did the above-mentioned that evolved first, work without the others?
6) How did feelings evolve?
7) How did love evolve?
8) How did mercy evolve?
9) How did guilt evolve?
10) How did thought evolve?
11) How did photosynthesis evolve?
And finally, in the interest of both time and space here, question 12:
12) What evolved first in the human brain: the ability to take in the colors of objects, the objects themselves, the sounds, smells and the temperature around you, processing all of your past and present memories, thoughts and emotions…all the while keeping track of the basic functions of your body like breathing and eyelid movement and controlling your hunger pangs…while screening out the unimportant while simultaneously ranking in order of importance, so that you can focus and operate your life…all in real time?
How does the definition of science answer just one, let alone all 12, (in addition to the first 6 questions I asked in DAY 79: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – The Theory Of Evolution, Is The Science Really Settled?, in order for the Theory of Evolution to be considered accurate, dependable, and scientifically sound?
What if I told you that there is a number that could help us to determine once and for all whether or not the Theory of Evolution qualifies as science?
What is this number?
That will be covered next time.
Do not feel discouraged if your head is spinning trying to make sense of the 12 additional questions to consider when coming to a scientific conclusion regarding the Theory of Evolution. Do not feel discouraged if you still cannot come to a conclusion yourself as to whether or not the Theory of Evolution is reliable. Instead, embrace the idea that these questions are helping you to have a firm foundation to stand on when concluding whether the Theory of Evolution is science…or something else.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3 KJV)
Was today’s blog a little confusing at times? Was the content perhaps a little overwhelming? Did you feel lost not understanding some or most of the subject matter?
Those feelings are totally understandable and it is ok to have one or more of those feelings. Remember that you are reading DAY 80: The Scientific Revolution – Part 2 – The Theory Of Evolution, 12 More Questions.
If you haven’t been in class since the first day of school…or when the project began…or when the contract was first signed, etc., these feelings make perfect and logistical sense.
Please feel free to go back to where all of this began:
Day 1: What Is A Mid-Life Crisis?