Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[Revoltingest]

Feelings. As long as it feels true.

There's a chance that method might give
different results for each experimenter.
But by "test", I mean in the scientific sense,
ie, make predictions based upon the theory,
& then conduct experiments which could
possibly falsify the theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

I repeat, the functions of Science were conducted under the name of Natural Theology. The Natural Theology is acceptance of God of Love, so they prayed every morning at schools/lab. There was much less crime on the streets. We were never locking up our homes and cars. Today with the disbelieve in all goodness the Love runs out, and they are happy about it:

. . . and I repeat Natural Theology cannot falsify any scientific hypothesis. It is onlty a statement of theological 'belief' nothing more. Actually different inconsistent 'beliefs' define Natural Theology differently. I believe you are missusing the Theological concept of Natural Theology, and unfortunately refers to different 'beliefs.'.

Still waiting for a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[questfortruth]

I repeat Natural Theology cannot falsify any scientific hypothesis. It is onlty a statement of theological 'belief' nothing more. Actually different inconsistent 'beliefs' define Natural Theology differently.

1. You understand me, but you have a negative attitude. By the same token they accept the existence of God of Gaps, but they hate Him.
2. The prayers at school/labs drive the demons and UFO away from books, apparatus, experiments. Otherwise, they can corrupt them:
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

3. All theistic religions have at least one truth in common: "God's name is God, and He does exist"; the second common knowledge is: God loves the world.

 

[questfortruth]

What is Darwinism?
Do you mean evolution?

We don't call gravity, Newtonism, so why call evolution Darwinism?

If someone were in Hitler's Germany, he would call him "My Führer! Heil Hitler". Same way, they call Darwinism as "Theory". But the Stalin and Russian people would never call Hitler
as "Heil Hitler". By the way, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is Hitler's most admired book.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Prior to that departure, we also had alchemy and astrology.

After the departure actual progress also boosted exponentially.

But nevermind all that.
Let's just bash on "godless" science and fantasize about some grand satanistic conspiracy from which nobody can escape and which involves millions upon millions of people, making it the grandest conspriracy in the history of the universe.




Meanwhile, POTUS wasn't even able to keep the BJs he got from his secretary a secret.

 

[wellwisher]

Darwin wrote his thesis of natural selection after he visited the Galapagos Islands. This was an isolated place, where Darwin could observe nature in a pure ancient steady state, which had not been modified by man.

The problem is, the Galapagos Islands were not conducive to a second possible pathway for evolution and natural selection; migration. Migration is where you move to where the weather suits your clothes. This is different from staying in one place and letting the environment decide if you will be selected or not.

Some humans are born in the big city and may not be selected. They move to the suburbs and they finally shine. Based on the Galapagos isolation model this would look like a quantum appearance of a new species.

Humans migrated out of Africa and various groups of humans stopped in various places, while others split off and continued. This was not based on the Galapagos Island isolation model of Darwin. Rather the human brain played a role driving migration until the weather suited their clothes. Then the Galapagos aspects kicked in for the squatters.

 

[Altfish]

If someone were in Hitler's Germany, he would call him "My Führer! Heil Hitler". Same way, they call Darwinism as "Theory". But the Stalin and Russian people would never call Hitler
as "Heil Hitler". By the way, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is Hitler's most admired book.

What are you talking about???
There is no such thing in the scientific world as Darwinism. There ISN'T a Theory of Darwinism, there is a Theory of Evolution, that you obviously don't understand the first thing about it.
Regarding Hitler's most admired book, I'd like to see evidence of that assertion. But anyway, what does it matter? Darwin was describing real life, not advocating slaughter of thousands.
Do you blame Rutherford for Hiroshima?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The OP doesn’t understand science, obviously. However, from my short time here, people have issues with recognizing or mentioning troll behavior that is opposite to reason.

Very tolerant and reasonable people here, mostly, such that we aren't going to (and cannot) just call them idiots, even if we might think so.

 

[Assertive Outsider]

Very tolerant and reasonable people here, mostly, such that we aren't going to (and cannot) just call them idiots, even if we might think so.

If you can look at a duck and call it a duck, the same should apply to trolls.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The thing is simple: I am afraid of my invisible King of Kings, so I follow His commandments. I am afraid of hell.

Firstly, I want you to know that I take this "answer" of yours to indicate that you cannot come to conclusions about morality on your own. You apparently need a "fear of God" or "fear of hell" to keep you acting moralistically - which is sad and pathetic.

Secondly, I don't have such a fear. In fact I view fear of "God" or "hell" as worthless and wasteful. I am quite sure that you have zero intersubjectively verifiable evidence (evidence that you could share with the rest of us that would be too compelling to simply dismiss) of your "god's" existence - and so your fear is directed toward something that you can't even know exists. Likely all you have is what you have been told. You may believe you have some personal experiences that inform you of "God's" existence - however think on this for a moment - if you were never told about "God" as a child (or teen/adult - whenever you were told), never saw a Bible, never heard the stories, do you believe you would have come to the same conclusions ON YOUR OWN about how "the world" or "the universe" function? Do you think you would have come up with the idea of "God" or do you think "God" would have revealed himself to you, etc.? I, personally, do not at all believe that any child left to their own devices would come to the conclusions presented in The Bible, or come to know the "god" of Christianity in particular. And do you know why I believe this way? Because of the thousands of years of history that was recorded in various ways by the people of the times who came to completely different beliefs regarding god(s), the afterlife, the "spiritual realm", etc. You want to talk compelling evidence that is a part of the real world that is right before our eyes? That's some pretty compelling stuff right there.

 

[questfortruth]

There is no such thing in the scientific world as Darwinism

1. Science is defined as diminishing the role of religion in everyday research.
2. Darwin has described such possibility (the possibility is very small, but non-zero according to Creationists).
3. I follow the God, so I think the Darwin is wrong.
4. Thus, I disrespect Darwin's book.
5. To show my disrespect I call it "Darwinism". It is my religious right.

 

[questfortruth]

think on this for a moment - if you were never told about "God" as a child (or teen/adult - whenever you were told), never saw a Bible, never heard the stories, do you believe you would have come to the same conclusions ON YOUR OWN

I have seen the angel prior to my baptism. And I had no schizophrenia diagnosis, thus, it was not a hallucination.

 

[Mindmaster]

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.

Science is generally ideologically motivated, and most of the leaps basically come as the old guard is replaced as they die off. But, Darwinism is completely unproven by the evidence. Yes, there are many cases of "DNA" being shared between species and so on, but this is like saying two things are related because they have similar building blocks. There is no evidence of anything morphing its DNA and becoming a new species and for Darwin's theory to work that's fundamentally required. Parts of the theory are valid: natural section, inter-species genetic variation, and so on. Accepting it as the whole truth though is scientifically invalid.

The thrust of Darwin's work wasn't to elucidate on nature and animals as much it was to denigrate groups which he thought were inferior people. His Origin of a Species (which was merely a setup for the next title) and The Descent of Man (especially) were loaded with racial motifs and the later included many disparaging remarks to other races with scientific defenses of them.

Academia loves Darwin for essentially the same reason they like Woodrow Wilson (in the sense of history) -- he says what they believe, but are too deceitful to admit they agree with. Both were "academic" proponents of white purity and trying to "whitewash" science and history. Both succeeded to some degree, especially Wilson, but I digress that even bad people can have a few good ideas once in a blue moon.

 

[questfortruth]

Science is generally ideologically motivated, and most of the leaps basically come as the old guard is replaced as they die off. But, Darwinism is completely unproven by the evidence. Yes, there are many cases of "DNA" being shared between species and so on, but this is like saying two things are related because they have similar building blocks. There is no evidence of anything morphing its DNA and becoming a new species and for Darwin's theory to work that's fundamentally required. Parts of the theory are valid: natural section, inter-species genetic variation, and so on. Accepting it as the whole truth though is scientifically invalid.

The theists can judge over Darwin's books by applying the Theology to them. Thus, Darwinism is disproven in Natural Theology. However, Science is defined as the denial of the role of Theology in the technical research process. The truth in Science is defined as that all journals agree on (even if it violates the logic. It is because Creationists are not allowed to be published: the violation of logic will not be solicited, confirmed by majority). They agree on Darwinism. Thus, natural-theologically the Darwinism is wrong, but Scientifically it is proven.

How can it be? The question "Is there God?" has no meaning. There are two of them: the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit (also known under names Death, suffering, pain, Russel Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, satan, non-existing god, This is non-existing idol.). "God is Spirit" (Bible). Thus, there are two opposite definitions of faith in Wikipedia: 1. faith is blind, 2. faith is not blind; two names for Darwin's book: 1. Theory of Evolution, 2. Darwinism.

 

[blü 2]

By the way, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is Hitler's most admired book.

It's true that the Nazis were racist.

Of course, according to the bible God was racist, having a special covenant with the Jewish nation and its individuals to the exclusion of everyone else. It was Paul who declared that God had changed [his] mind and in effect torn up the covenant. Matthew's Jesus, on the other hand, declares that not a single dot of the Law will be changed till the Kingdom is established.

Who should you believe, the Tanakh or Jesus or Paul?

 

[Altfish]

1. Science is defined as diminishing the role of religion in everyday research.

No it isn't; it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

2. Darwin has described such possibility (the possibility is very small, but non-zero according to Creationists).

Darwin started the discussion on evolution, it has been developed and further proven over the years since.

3. I follow the God, so I think the Darwin is wrong.

That's your problem but don't blame Darwin for your doubts

4. Thus, I disrespect Darwin's book.

Again, your problem

5. To show my disrespect I call it "Darwinism". It is my religious right.

Your religion has no rights. But if you want to disrespect Darwin it is your loss.
But modern medicine owes much to Evolution and Darwin.

 

[questfortruth]

No it isn't; it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Same does Natural Theology. To distinguish it from Science one understands, that Science is religion-free.

 

[Riders]

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

what is official Science?

 

[Riders]

In 1871, another important work of Darwin appeared - "The Origin of Human and Sexual Selection", where Darwin argued in favor of the natural origin of human from animals (ape-like ancestors). So: 1) it's because of Darwin the girls think of angelic guys as of losers, and 2) Darwin said we were given birth by a monkey?

We are a race of apes!