recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution

[Anonymous]

Where can I find unbiased information to answer questions about creationism vs. evolution? Are there any?

[Anonymous]

I don't think any website that compares the two will be objective. Evolution is science and there are many legitimate, reputable websites that explain it.

Http://Www.nas.edu/evolution

Http://www.Evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Creationism is religion-based and best explained by yiur particular faith/denomination.

[Anonymous]

Not exactly what you asked for but this site http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html (and there are others like it) list and recount the many creations stories that have existed in cultures around the world.

The Christian creation story is one of many and evolution is not a story, it is science.

[Anonymous]

Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is all those things. It is well validated. Only nut cases don't know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is testable and reproducible -- scientists have done many studies or smaller organism, such as bacteria and fruit flies, that show how mutations at the individual level over time lead to larger changes at the community level.

It is also observable, through the fossil record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.[/quote

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is testable and reproducible -- scientists have done many studies or smaller organism, such as bacteria and fruit flies, that show how mutations at the individual level over time lead to larger changes at the community level.

It is also observable, through the fossil record.

Do those bacteria and fruit fly studies show a mutation to a new species, or just a change in the community? I'm sure traits within a community change, but that's not the same thing as a species change. I'm not sure how fossils can show a change from one species to another. I'd be happy to be enlightened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.[/quote

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

So you can do experiments on evolution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in science. It's not just a hypothesis. It's "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

So you can do experiments on evolution?

NP here. Yes, of course you can. See earlier PP's comment about experiments with fruit flies such as the ubiquitous D. melanogaster and bacteria, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in science. It's not just a hypothesis. It's "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation."

Well then, OK, what is evolution? Evolution has not been repeatedly confirmed through experiment. And if observation is only through fossil records, I'd say it's also not possible to observe it in the way we can other sciences. Not trying to be dense here, but I just don't see the scientific basis that evolution is given vs. physical sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can I find unbiased information to answer questions about creationism vs. evolution? Are there any?

Facts have an unmistakable liberal bias, OP. Just remember that as you read about evolution and experience cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

So you can do experiments on evolution?

NP here. Yes, of course you can. See earlier PP's comment about experiments with fruit flies such as the ubiquitous D. melanogaster and bacteria, etc.

Did fruit flies or D. melangoster mutate into another species?

[Anonymous]

It terrifies me that people are now approaching this issue as if creationism is equivalent to science. Wow.