© 2002 Paul Perkins
Oh crap! I have the tools. I have the
experiment. What I do not have is scientific justification for this
thing. This is where I have to come up with a theory to justify what
I was going to do anyway.
Here's what I've come up with...
quote from Arlo Moehlenpah's "Evolution
- Science or Religion?"
"The theory of evolution is not scientific. It
is important that we know what science is and are able to distinguish
between 'science' and what is 'falsely called science.' A typical
definition of science is that it is a branch of study concerned with
observation and classification of facts, especially with the establishment
of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypothesis. Webster
defines science as 'systematized knowledge derived from observation,
study, and experimentation…'. You can look at various dictionaries and
get slightly different definitions but the key words will be 'observation,'
'experimentation,' 'verifiable,' 'testable,' and 'repeatable.' In other
words, if it cannot be observed, repeated, verified or subject to
experimentation, then it is not scientific. Evolution has never been
observed, repeated, verified nor has an experiment ever been performed
regarding it. Thus evolution is not scientific."
Moehlenpah supports this view
by stating that, "The theory of evolution contradicts known
scientific laws such as the law of biogenesis, the law of kinds and the
second law of thermodynamics." Since macro-evolution hasn't
been observed, and isn't repeatable, it is a belief based on faith.
He concludes that the theory of evolution is a religion. Fair
scientists have similar theories.
I will attempt to prove him wrong, and the scientific community right. I shall, once and for all,
disprove entropy by creating order from chaos. If I'm lucky I might
even create life with my own big bang.
Pull my finger...