Is Darwinism pseudoscience
- yes
- maybe
- do not know
- no
0
voters
Is Darwinism pseudoscience? What do you think?
I’m sorry to break the news to you, but Pierre-Paul Grassé died almost 30 years ago. If your best argument against a universally accepted scientific principle is a guy who was criticizing it three decades ago, you should really try to find a better one.
30 years ago, you could have claimed the earth wasn’t warming, that major banks were too big to fail, that 1MB of ram is enough for power users. You could have claimed that evolution isn’t a thing. All of these claims look laughably wrong in today’s world.
What is “pseudoscience”?
Have Darwin’s hypotheses been tested according to the scientific method and found untenable?
Why do you ask?
(Added a few questions to the list to brighten your day - you’re welcome 
)
Of course it’s not pseudoscience. You should go out and actually learn some science, then you’d be able to understand the hundreds of thousands of experiments that do show that Darwin was right. Sure, we’re still learning more about the details, and there are some parts of hereditable information transfer that are not classically Darwinian, but the idea of evolution is incontestable, except by ignorant lunatics. Yes, I am including creationists in that blanket statement.
Absolutely !! I would have deemed Pope John Pauls recent “Sainthood” worthy,had he been willing to explain that fact to his followers. 
That would have been a real miracle.
Pseudo science? It might be a fancy name for something that is only a theory.
Personally I like better mutation and natural selection than adaptation.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]]
30 years ago… You could have claimed that evolution isn’t a thing. [/quote]
Not really. More like 100?
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]I’m sorry to break the news to you, but Pierre-Paul Grassé died almost 30 years ago. If your best argument against a universally accepted scientific principle is a guy who was criticizing it three decades ago, you should really try to find a better one.
30 years ago, you could have claimed the earth wasn’t warming, that major banks were too big to fail, that 1MB of ram is enough for power users. You could have claimed that evolution isn’t a thing. All of these claims look laughably wrong in today’s world.[/quote]
HK…you mean 1Mb of ram isn’t enough? Earth Warming up ? What did I miss.?
BenjaminK is back!! 
Fat laughter for everyone will ensue! 
Darwinism is good.
I’ve forgotten how the next bit is supposed to go, something like this:
If Darwinism isn’t good, then why is it so good? Do you think you’re better than Darwinism?
why call it Darwinism? what’s wrong with just calling it evolution or natural selection?
How’s that for psuedo-science?
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]I’m sorry to break the news to you, but Pierre-Paul Grassé died almost 30 years ago. If your best argument against a universally accepted scientific principle is a guy who was criticizing it three decades ago, you should really try to find a better one.
30 years ago, you could have claimed the earth wasn’t warming, that major banks were too big to fail, that 1MB of ram is enough for power users. You could have claimed that evolution isn’t a thing. All of these claims look laughably wrong in today’s world.[/quote]
When did Darwin create his theory? Isn’t it much earlier than this scientist?
What is “pseudoscience”?
Have Darwin’s hypotheses been tested according to the scientific method and found untenable?
Why do you ask?
(Added a few questions to the list to brighten your day - you’re welcome )[/quote]
I think you can read here:
Conclusion: We’re created, not evolved!
creation.com/created-or-evolved
can you give a concrete evidence which can show us how sth became a hen?
[quote=“TexMex”]Pseudo science? It might be a fancy name for something that is only a theory.
Personally I like better mutation and natural selection than adaptation.[/quote]
Darwinism is only a wrong theory.
It does not matter which you prefer, this is science.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Hokwongwei”]]
30 years ago… You could have claimed that evolution isn’t a thing. [/quote]
Not really. More like 100?[/quote]
Younger than Darwin.
[quote=“Benjamin K”]
Conclusion: We’re created, not evolved!
creation.com/created-or-evolved[/quote]
That’s not much of a conclusion. To say “wow things are really complex, there must have been a creator” is facilely simple and plainly unscientific. Researchers are constantly investigating evolution and uncovering evidence to show that it does actually occur. They have developed a great deal of such evidence, and the theory of evolution has become a convincing one. This is science. Complex structures aren’t unaccounted for under the theory of evolution either. The theory doesn’t attempt to clear up whether there ever was a creator of the universe. On the other hand, if you want to assert that such a creator exists, you’ll have to come up with some evidence to that effect, otherwise you really haven’t said anything at all. If you want to claim that life is static and never changes that would be field for research I suppose, but not a very promising one I think.
[quote=“Benjamin K”]
I think you can read here:
Conclusion: We’re created, not evolved!
creation.com/created-or-evolved[/quote]
great example of pseudoscience :bravo: