A theory is a well-supported, but falsifiable, body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power.
True
For instance, gravity has observable “how” effects although there is great divergence in current, eminent, scholarly opinion when it comes to explaining gravity’s “whys”.
ish bit not that relevant
Evolution, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted
Prior to what research Not prior to Darwin. One may as well assume that physicists or chemists assume things – periodic table for example prior to research.
and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation).
What the random bits of it?
Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes).
As do all scientists – with perhaps the exception of “scientists” who study supernatural phenomena- this is not just a facet of evolution – Chemistry does not assume supernatural causes for say fire or anything else.
As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.
What you talking about now.
It can predict that genes transmit information to the offspring and predict what diseases you can inherit. You can test this if you want. It can look at plant genes and predict the % of off spring that will be tall. It can predict and it is falsifiable if they prediction dont work for example.
Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system).
Chuckles – is this from a very intelligent version of watchtower?. Its not its a fact based explanation of what we observe with divergent evidence from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Its data based as shown by the reaction when Darwin said we were monkeys [ and not gods image]
Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation).
Again all science does this every last bit of itfor obvious reasons
Every time we dont know the answer we would say miracle or supernatural – would these explanations then be predictive and testable – LOL I am not sue if you are being serious tbh. You seem knowledgable but its all smoke and mirrors
Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.
Its not if you want to propose an alternative feel free
if your alternative has no evidence to support it beyond a book and the facts within that book being wrong – age of earth, geocentric universe etc then it is likely folk will mock your view.
QED “Creationist religious nutjob”
If the cap fits – its coarse language for sure but they certainly are at the fringes of reasonable explanation for how we got here.
not to mention billions of years out on the age 😉
Comparing evolution with creationism is like comparing modern chemistry with the 4 elements of earth, wind, water and fire. It was a guess made thousands of years ago that is clearly wrong.
