Is Evolutionary Theory Scientific Fact or Scientific Theory?
The overarching principle for arrival at characterization of a Scientific Premise or Theory as Scientific Fact is satisfaction of the principle of Replicability of Observations and Measurements.
The Law of Gravity is scientific fact, only because it has been infinitely observed and measured, and each time, has produced exactly the same results. The Law of Relativity also has character of Scientific Fact.
Every time a plane takes off, and absent any human or mechanical malfunctions, lands, factual nature of the Law of Gravity is established.
Every time it appears, from your standpoint, as if the wheels of a vehicle that is in motion spin backwards, but yet, another located at a different standpoint observes forward spin, there is satisfaction of the Law of Relativity. You each observe the same velocity, but neither is able to identify exact location. The phenomenon that is ‘Parallax’ is derivative of the Law of Relativity.
Since adoption of evolution as theory for origins of life by the educational system of the United States in context of a series of Supreme Court decisions spanning 1958 through 1962, evolutionary theory has gone on to acquire character of Scientific Fact, as opposed to character of a Scientific Theory that has yet to be directly observed and measured. In this respect, it is important to note that Gravity and Relativity have character of Scientific Fact, only because they have been directly observed and measured by scientists.
The question to ask then is: Have scientists directly observed and measured predictions of Evolutionary Theory?
If scientists have directly observed and measured predictions of evolutionary theory, they have observed and measured mutations that enable a fish transform into an animal that lives on land, and have observed mutations that enable an animal living on land transform into a bird.
The truth of the matter?
In all of the 6,000 years of writings that come to us from ancient, historical, and contemporaneous times, there is not a single documentation of mutations that are advocated by Evolutionary Theory. Deficiency of direct observation and measurement of predictions of Evolutionary Theory is matter of fact, indisputable.
In response to the evidence for dearth of direct observation and measurement, a scientist may retort that there exists an impossibility, namely, with each mutation assumed to take more than 6,000 years, it is impossible for science to observe and measure predictions of evolutionary theory. But then there exists the following reconciliation of outlined impossibility with teaching of the theory.
If, due to necessity of millions of years for observation and measurement of evolution, it is not possible to directly observe and measure predictions of evolutionary theory, then Evolutionary Theory is a Scientific Theory, equivalently, Scientific Premise, not Scientific Fact.
What then about the fossil evidence? Evidence for two different sets of bones lying with the same geographical region is not evidence that has character of directly observed and measured phenomena. This is evident as follows.
The assertion that one set of bones is given birth to by another has never been directly observed, as such does not have character of scientific fact, has character of an assumption, equivalently, hypothesis. In this respect, it is matter of fact that bones, which previously were deemed to be evidence for evolution by scientists, turned out to be bones of an old bent over man who had a deformed spine. With respect to Carbon-14 ages for fossils that are dated to be of order of 50,000 years old, a new formal theoretical study, which, importantly, assumes credibility of Carbon-14 ages, demonstrates inadmissibility of Carbon-14 ages as scientific evidence that provides validation for evolutionary theory.
While it may not be untrue that two different sets of bones are produced by the same species, in absence of direct observation and measurement, the assertion that they belong to the same species, as such are evidence for evolution, is nothing but an assumption, equivalently, an hypothesis.
But is evolutionary theory a feasible theory for origins of life? Well, ‘Yes’, and ‘No’. The ‘Yes’ is premised on the reality that no one can assert, it is impossible that, somehow, a formerly inanimate, yet invincible (to the human eye) cell acquired consciousness, and became seed for origins of life. Intellectually speaking then, the answer is ‘Yes’.
The premise for the ‘No’?
In all 6,000 years for which we have written histories, there is not a single shred of evidence, which provides support for feasibility of acquiring of consciousness by a formerly inanimate and invincible entity. In this respect, consider that when scientists sought to create ‘Dolly’ the cloned sheep, they sourced cells not from some probabilistic event that produced cells in a petri dish, but from an already existing sheep, which was birthed by another sheep. Pragmatically speaking then, the answer to feasibility of Evolutionary Theory is, ‘No’, it does not appear to reside in realm of feasibility.
While it cannot be asserted that it is impossible for a previously inanimate, and invincible (to the eye) entity to acquire consciousness, there is not a shred of evidence for conferring of a positive probability on such a possibility.
What then about Intentional Design as theory for origins of life? Again, origins of life having already transpired, we arrive at the fact that factual nature of Intentional Design neither can be observed nor measured. We have then that, in so far as origins of life are concerned, Intentional Design cannot be asserted to be Scientific Fact.
Intentional Design cannot be asserted to be Scientific Fact, only can have character of a Scientific Premise or Theory.
But is Intentional Design merely concoct of religion, or does it have support of Scientific Facts?
Well then, let us consider evidence from the process for Procreation. Since a theory for origins of life must be relatable to the process that ensures continuity of life — Procreation — evidence that the theory of Intentional Design can be premised on Scientific Facts ought be inferable from the process for procreation.
Throughout the 6,000 years of man’s written history, a human pregnancy that is fully successful has taken exactly 9 months to produce a fully formed baby. In presence of infinitely replicable character of the evidence, which has been directly observed and measured for upwards of 6,000 years, we arrive at the following Scientific Facts.
The process for procreation of man always takes 9 months, as such conforms with Intentional Design.
There is nothing random about the procreation process that forms man. Doctors are able to predict exactly what organs are formed in the 1st Trimester, 2nd Trimester, and 3rd Trimester of a Pregnancy.
In context of procreation, typically, there does not exist any probabilistic events, only Intentional Design.
If procreation requires two entities of the same species, always one is male, the other female.
A baby human always comes out of the mother.
The evidence for man extends perfectly to all animals that live on land, all birds that fly in the sky, and all creatures that live in the sea. Gestation periods are well defined, and progress of the procreation process is rooted in determinism, not probabilities.
A Scientific Theory (Intentional Design) that itself is rooted in Scientific Facts — determinism of the process for procreation — cannot itself have character of a Pseudo Science, that is, a pretense at Science.
In presence of the procreation evidence, it is eminently, unambiguously, and unequivocally non-scientific to assert that Intentional Design is Pseudo Science, that is, Pretense Science.
The assertion that Intentional Design is Pseudo Science is, on basis of the evidence, shown to have character of ‘Proof by Bluster’, or ‘Proof by Backing of Supreme Courts’, or ‘Proof by Confusing of Supreme Court Judges who, themselves, are not Scientists’, or ‘Proof by ‘we already won’, so what?’, as opposed to ‘Proof Premised on Scientific Facts’.
Educational systems all over the world have the right to teach evolutionary theory as a competing theory for origins of life. This right is premised on the normative that, intellectually speaking, the answer to feasibility of evolutionary theory is ‘Yes’.
The decision to exclude Intentional Design from school curricula is, however, on basis of the evidence, rooted in Intellectual Fraud — the determination to sell evolutionary theory, as opposed to intellectual authenticity that presents it for what it is, theory or hypothesis, not fact.
So then, with sole teaching of evolutionary theory, we arrive at kids who, on basis of theory of ‘survival of the fittest’, think anyone who believes ‘all men are created equal’ are idiots and fools. But yet kids, who, simultaneously, live in countries whose Declarations of Independence, and/or adoption of Socialism or Communism as political philosophy simultaneously declare, ‘all men are created equal’. If ‘all men are created equal’, do we not assert Intelligent Design as origins of life?
It is time society asks itself whether it’s mind already is compromised by confusions begotten by scientists, with outcome society ought to be thinking about how exactly to rid itself of it’s confusions.
The first step back is, perhaps, the scientific authenticity that restores teaching of Scientific Underpinnings of Intentional Design to Elementary and High School Curricula.