Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

The last point I was making is that evolutionary theory can not be used to predict the future. Because of that it is not fully scientific. Don't get me wrong there are many good scientists doing good science associated with the various details of evolution. But the current version of the full theory still can't can be used to predict the future. It is almost like evolutionary theory is given special treatment and held to a looser standard.

The Age of Enlightenment was important, since it shifted how we viewed nature from empirical correlation into a rational view of the world. With evolutionary theory so dependant on statistics, which is not cause and affect, it sort of uses a sophisticated version of pre-Age of Enlightenment empiricism. In other words, give me rational reasons apart from empirical statistics to demonstrate that the current version of evolutionary theory is based on post Age of enlightenment philosophy. It can't predict the future because it is not fully rational or based on cause and affect. Instead it uses something similar to a gambling system based on odds. But in the end the house always seems to win, so nobody tries to make predictions.

If you look at middle ages Alchemy, their understanding of chemistry was not rational or based on cause and affect. But it was based on careful observation allowing their mystical theories to correlate the data within a margin of error. To them the beaker was in the hands of chaos but with careful observation they learned how to predict the chaos. Evolutionary theory is cut from the same cloth and makes use of the empirical schema that the age of enlightenment worked so hard to overcome. This throw back to the past is why religion has stepped. One will not see religion trying to challenge gravity or chemistry since these are rational.