Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBL87
But, what about the scientific method that you just outlined? There is no way to test the hypothesis. We can look at evidence (just like I see evidence of God) but neither can be tested empirically with the scientific method. We can test micro-evolution (specialization) empirically, because we can observe it. We cannot, however, test the evolution from one species to another, because we cannot observe (and therefore test) it, we cannot test our hypothesis.
|
In my original post I talked of proof. Not everything has to be observed in the literal sense for it to be proved or tested by scientific theory.
Just a bit about observation:
Quote:
|
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counter intuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference.
|
This article would probably interest you:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
According to that macro-evolution does chime with scientific method.