Evolution is not science.

* INTRODUCTION * To clarify, I will be c/p a lot of this round from a previous debate I did on the same subject. I'll begin by responding to Pro's first point. In this round, I will prove that evolution does in fact adhere to the scientific method. Regarding his watch analogy, I have no idea what he is referring to or attempting to explain, and politely request a better example or more direct point. I contend that macroevolution (referred to simply as "evolution" in this debate) does indeed adhere to the scientific method, as well as meets the criteria for a valid scientific theory. The scientific method is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory [1].* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY [2] *- Consistent (internally & externally)- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)- Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)== Evolution is Consistent ==Evolution does not contradict the laws of chemistry or physics or other physical sciences. Additionally, there is essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute [3, 4, 5]. We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. Questions about evolution do not verify creationism.== Evolution is Parsimonious ==Evolution is the genetic change over time. This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable.== Evolution is Useful ==Denial of evolution amounts to denial of the foundations of modern biology. Evolution explains anatomical and biochemical similarities between different living organisms, including the vestigial components; why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development; why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function; drug resistant bacteria; ring species; biography; the fossil record, etc. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the explanatory framework provided by the theory of evolution, the biological sciences would be disjointed and much within biology would not make sense [6].== Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested ==In order to test a theory, you must first make a prediction by utilizing information to infer or explain past events or physical states. You then devise a way to test the theory and see if it adds up. Not only is this possible with evolution, but it's been proven and explained to the point of being near universally accepted by scientists. Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity are theories. However we're able to prove gravity through explanation. We can do the same with evolution. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is simply how things happen in nature [7]. Evolution can and HAS been tested.== Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable ==The theory of evolution has evolved over time depending on the latest evidence to emerge. Today it is indeed a different theory than the one Darwin has described, and we can expect it to change and develop even further considering there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the theory. However, none of the observable facts stand contrary to the idea of genetic change over time. Additionally, there are innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [8, 9, 10]. It is also possible to falsify evolution, meaning if it were actually done then evolution would succumb to intellectual defeat. However none of the presented evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists - 95% of them [11], and does not disprove the theory anyway but merely challenges it.= Evolution is Progressive and Tentative ==This is self-explanatory. Austin Cline best explains, "The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution" [2].* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD *- Observation- Hypothesis- Testing- Revising== Observation ==The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent [2].== Hypothesis ==A hypothesis about observable changes in nature and its causes has been made regarding macroevolution.== Testing ==The test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution [7]. Also, even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species?== Revising a.k.a. More Testing of Hypothesis ==The apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented [12]. Additionally, various experiments confirm the process of evolution in fish [8] and lizards [9].* CONCLUSION *Macroevolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. Furthermore it meets the criteria for the scientific method. The concept was derived scientifically by examining nature; this stands contrary to theories that rival evolution like creationism (for which there is no scientific evidence). I eagerly await Con's explanation of how evolution is not scientific and/or how the scientific method can be applied to creationism.* SOURCES * All Sources listed in this round can be found in Round 2 of this debate. http://www.debate.org...;