Essay about Arguing Evolution

by modern science and why is it often taught as a proven fact in high

It is important that we have this knowledge and constantly build on it because there still isn’t any valid ground. We can say “we think this can happen” but as more studies come out we can change that thought or idea into a valid explanation. Although you can’t convince every person into believing something, having proof behind your explanation is going to be more persuasive than just stating what you’ve heard.

Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation

As we have learned in class and as we still see now in the modern world, the topic of evolution vs creationism has been one of much dispute. To many, there is only one side; you either believe in God or in Science, you either believe that Adam and Eve are our ancestors or you believe that through the years and the changes in the world we have evolved from apes. Whichever side you find yourself on there will always be someone that disagrees with you and is willing to tell you why you are wrong.

There is partial explanation and/or reasoning behind the evidence provided, although it it needs further development or clarity.

The foundation for the theory of evolution was laid by Charles Darwin (Rose, n.d.). He developed hypotheses about natural selection which helped scientists develop the theory. Evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis because evolution has been proven by vast amounts of scientific data, research, and testing. The definition of a hypothesis is an educated explanation that needs to be researched and tested but has not yet been proven (Earman, 1984). There has been no scientific evidence to disprove the theory of evolution.

The definition of Evolution is ¨the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth,¨ (Dictionary.com, 2018). Although, the actual definition is hard to comprehend. Some consider Evolution to be a somewhat ridiculous topic that is far from true. Though others believe that, ¨Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology,¨ (Than, 2018). The main idea of Biological Evolution is that all life on Earth share a common ancestor. The term is a way of understanding life.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the

This just leaves everything to how the scientist wants it to be and leaves the people who do not understand why it is like that to admit it as fact with no way to counter it. News channels or even political or ideal parties use this kind of strategy. Let me use some form of statistics as an example. If a poll that is taken only using a select group and misses a larger group that people forget about and claim it as fact an issue

Henry Morris, Ph.D., of the Institute for Creation Research, proclaimed that “the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds.” But if evolution is not taking place and there are unbridgeable gaps, how could Morris explain what happens when two species, let’s say humans, breed. The DNA from two individuals combines and traits from both parents will be present in the offspring.

In 1895 Charles Darwin published a book describing his theory of evolution, and his theory of the natural selection process. This theory caused much uproar in the religious community because Darwin’s theory went against the story of creation portrayed in the Holy Bible. His theory claimed that all life currently in place had evolved and adapted from a single organism in the beginning. Over time and by process of natural selection only the dominant species were left over while the other, less dominant species, went extinct. His theory, backed by scientific analysis, had dismissed the idea of a single deity creating all life on Earth. It is not like Darwin had a personal agenda against religion or anything,

Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould (1983, p.256).

However, a counter-claim is simplicity aids reasoning when gaging accuracy of scientific explanations. The simplicity principle states the simplest theory providing an equally acceptable explanation of experimental trends is ‘preferred’ . This was applied in Phlogiston’s refutation. Many once believed combusting substances gave off Phlogiston. . As metals gain mass in combustion, if they simultaneously lost Phlogiston, the latter would require a negative mass. By the simplicity principle, it was concluded Lavoisier’s oxygen theory, which did not resort to this ludicrous assumption, whilst explaining the same experimental evidence, was more accurate. I think simplicity is desirable as scientists rely on empiricism; they verify their hypotheses through active experimentation. Simpler theories are likely to exist more within the bounds of experimental data. In contrast, as we move to more complex theories we are forced to make claims that are not fully falsifiable. We can test for oxygen but it would impossible to confirm Phlogiston’s negative mass to prove its existence. The greater

However, not all the errors can be associated to the systematic errors made by the experts, the researcher 's hypothesis and predictions they made before the experiment that might influence them as they try to pick certain evidence to support their claims and become victims of conformational bias. For example, in biology class I learned that the evolution theories of gradualism in which species evolve gradually and punctuated equilibrium in which species evolve sporadically due to certain events such as natural disasters. Both theories use the fossil record to support their side, again taking only certain fossils that clearly shows support their respective sides such as long periods of no significant change in species supports punctuated equilibrium. Sometimes, the evidence itself is not enough to give rise to such theories as it is known that the fossil record is incomplete and lends way to further interpretation and disagreement.

Karl Popper held that scientific theories are accepted or rejected based on whether a theory can be falsified, and if it survives attempts at falsification. (189) Popper contends that it is not possible to prove a theory true, but it is possible to prove a theory false. (189) Because ad hoc theories are postulated to fit a particular set of circumstances, if a theory is tested, that is an attempt at falsification is made, and the theory is proved false under conditions that are not identical to the conditions under which it was formulated, then one could choose to incorporate the differing conditions into a new ad hoc theory. There is, in effect, an alternative to falsification. On the other hand, if one insists on universal application over a range of discrete circumstances, in effect, a larger net of possible scenarios for falsification is cast. The much