Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[questfortruth]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Darwinism is "useful", not "proven".
Although...there are no scientific alternatives to it.

 

[questfortruth]

there are no scientific alternatives to it

The alternative to lie is truth,
And the alternative to truth is lie. The society can function even driven by lies.

 

[RabbiO]

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

Since that is something that Darwin did not posit, since that is not something that evolutionists posit, the most charitable thing I can say is that you have been misinformed.

 

[questfortruth]

that is something that Darwin did not posit

The Darwin has wrote not one book, but the second too. In the second book, he has written that humans came from monkeys.

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative to lie is truth,
And the alternative to truth is lie. The society can function even driven by lies.

If you could conduct a test (experiment) that falsified darwinism,
& this test was repeated with the same results, then continued
support could be called a "lie".
What falsification do you have?
What testable alternative is there?

 

[questfortruth]

What testable alternative is there?

Science has started in 16-the century as non-justified separation from faith. However, prior to this departure from the faith, there were Physics, Mathematics, etc. within Natural Theology.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science has started in 16-the century as non-justified separation from faith. However, prior to this departure from the faith, there were Physics, Mathematics, etc. within Natural Theology.

That doesn't provide a scientific alternative to darwinism though.
Theology doesn't provide any testable model.

 

[ChristineM]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

Darwinism was a good start 150 years ago, science has improved on Darwin's ideas.

Science does not prove anything no matter how loud you shout. Science presents a hypothesis and tests it, if it fails the hypothesis us modified, if successfully tested the hypothesis is accepted but us open to change as new data is found

Darwinism was the best explanation for evolution at the time it was written. Additional data has improved the hypothesis if evolution to the extent that it has now become theory of the best available description of evolution.

It may all change tomorrow if new data is presented, do nothing us proven by science

 

[HonestJoe]

The Darwin has wrote not one book, but the second too. In the second book, he has written that humans came from monkeys.

No he didn't. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

 

[questfortruth]

Theology doesn't provide any testable model.

Natural Theology does.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Let's go through you assertions here one by one:

1) The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
False. journals are enterprises for publishing the results of the latest studies in a particular field of research.

2) Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
"Darwinsim" is not an accepted moniker for studies of biological evolution. Evolution is accepted because ever since Darwin first offered the explanation of natural selection through survivability of offspring in a population, no other competing theory (e.g., Lamarkian evolution through acquired traits) has been found to explain so much of what is observed.

3) Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
Evolution is not 'proven.' But it is accepted as fact because every test and observation has supported the underlying premise that natural pressures affect the survival of and development of species.

4) But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
You offer one incorrect (straw man) illustration. No one involved in biology would make such an absurd statement (except perhaps in jest--to illustrate the silly arguments of creationists). It shows you do not understand evolution, or biology.

5) Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.
This is a tremendous leap in logic, not even supported by your first four propositions even if they were true, and they aren't.

 

[questfortruth]

Science does not prove anything no matter how loud you shout.

Please read the title more carefully:
Is Darwinism .... accepted by official Science?

 

[Revoltingest]

Natural Theology does.

Could you describe it?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The Darwin has wrote not one book, but the second too. In the second book, he has written that humans came from monkeys.

Please quote the relevant sections, or at least provide citations.

My recollection of his work is such to suggest that you have greatly simplified his argument...that primates evolved out of the ancestral population that also gave rise to modern monkeys...that the great apes evolved out of the ancestral primate population...that humans evolved out of the ancestral great ape population...all over a period of many millions of years.

That is not saying that one day a monkey gave birth to a human, which is what you are implying he said, and are arguing is what evolution is about.

 

[ChristineM]

Please read the title more carefully:
Is Darwinism .... accepted by official Science?

The title

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

Your selective dotting to omit key words just doesnt cut it.

And i believe my post also address the accepted part of the op by explaining that things have moved on in the last 150 years

 

[questfortruth]

Could you describe it?

Science has started in 16-the century as non-justified separation from faith. However, prior to this departure from the faith, there were Physics, Mathematics, etc. within Natural Theology.

The way of Natural Theology begins with School/lab prayer every morning and evening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science has started in 16-the century as non-justified separation from faith. However, prior to this departure from the faith, there were Physics, Mathematics, etc. within Natural Theology.

The way of Natural Theology begins with School/lab prayer every morning and evening.

Science is justifiably separate from religion.
The former is a process involving testing theories (models).
The latter is belief not based upon testing.
So....what testable alternative theory to darwinism is there?

 

[SomeRandom]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

The alternative to lie is truth,
And the alternative to truth is lie. The society can function even driven by lies.

Science has started in 16-the century as non-justified separation from faith. However, prior to this departure from the faith, there were Physics, Mathematics, etc. within Natural Theology.

 

[questfortruth]

Science is justifiably separate from religion.

No. We need School/lab prayers to solve the Q-problem:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila