Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

What we all forget. not too long ago medical science was doing blood letting based on the understanding and empirical data of that time. This has long changed and advanced but only because technology allows us to see cels and beyond. I am sure the science of the day had their own theories for evolution. If we had this debate, at that time, the more science minded would insist on the spontaneous creation theory but using physical explanations instead of god. This would correlate this with data and could have used statistics if that had been available to make it look like this was a valid representation of reality.

I am not saying creationism is correct, but science is a work in progress and needs to be seen that way, so young people are more willing to question and advance it to the next level. I like evolution, but it has built in fudge factors via statistics, which may be the reality of evolution, or may also be an artifact of a good empirical correlation that still has some missing logic, that makes it sort of useless for prediction. Say we had a theory of gravity that could predict at the same level as evolution, would we lobby to carve this into stone? Science would be a little tentative since, since it lacks sufficient logic to allow that. I see evolution still able to get better so once day we know what is next.