What is often mistakenly regarded as being based on science?

Answer 1

This question can generate many differing views. Some are mentioned below.

Answer 1 Intelligent design is pseudoscientific because it is based on the notion that the universe is so complex that it needed a creator to create it in order to exist as such. However, this premise is invalid as a scientific hypothesis since we cannot prove this by testing and measuring some arbitrary measurement: we can't say "Oh, we need a God to make this galaxy because it's just so big and too hard for us to understand! The results from the deus ex machina indicate this!" Besides, if you can't prove the validity of the existence of a universal creator, then logically you can never prove or disprove a system which is wholly depedent on the existence of said creator. For these reasons, you can't go around saying intelligent design is solid science and a plausible alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Answer 2

Just as Creatisonism is "not supported" by science, neither is evolution. Darwin had first thought of the idea while researching various specimens on his expedition to catalog new organisms. He had developed natural selection as an alternative to Lamarckism, which is the inheritance of acquired traits ( Ex: I have huge muscles, so my kid will have huge muscles). However, years after publishing his idea, he o that natural selection would take much longer to have happened than thought, so he went back to lamarckism. Yet ignorantly, scientists have developed the discarded idea since. The idea of the universe being 15 billion years old has also been broken by "sciences" own advances. The idea is that everything is moving away from everything else as a result of the Big Bang. To support this idea, the theory of redshift was developed, which states that the age of an object can be reasoned by calculating the amount of light being received from that object. This idea worked well for a while, until quasars were discovered. Quasars are bright , pulsating stars found at the far ends of the universe. By using the theory of redshift, some of these objects were found to be up to 24 billion years, nearly double the "age" of the universe! Lastly the problem with carbon dating. Although thought to be very accurate, this method isn't as accurate as credited. For the first part, the exact radioactive life of any element is unknown, as no human can live for more than a thousand years, and secondly, these dating methods give various options for the age of a fossil, out of which scientists are able to choose. This completely discards any dating method as unreliable. There is much more that disproves evolution, but these are the main points. If you want to discuss this any further post on my wall, my username of course is Zadkiel1997, and i close the answer to this question with another. What do you believe?

Answer 3

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING "BASED" ON SCIENCE AND BEING "CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE" OR BEING AN "ACCEPTED HYPOTHESIS". IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT FOR AN ASSERTION TO BE "BASED" ON SCIENCE. MANY LIES AND FALSEHOOD HAVE BEEN BASED ON SCIENCE...IE. RACISM, SEXISM, EUGENICS, "THE GAY GENE" (NO BIAS INTENDED-NO PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALS-JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE SEARCH AND PROPOSED SEXUALITY GENE DOES NOT EXIST AND IS USED AS Propaganda FOR THE UNINFORMED MASSES TO ACCEPT BECAUSE THE AVERAGE PERSON IS NOT A "GENETICIST" AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND BIOLOGICAL LANGUAGE AND OPINIONS.)

BEING CONFIRMED OR ACCEPTED IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. BUT HEY RACISM WAS ACCEPTED FOR AT LEAST 600 YEARS AND STILL IS TO SOME UNINFORMED PEOPLE.