Evolution and the Scientific Method ----> Creationsim

Ah, I did know where my opponent was going with this.I refute my opponent's claim that evolution cannot be subject to experimentation on the basis that there exists a process known as natural experimentation in the scientific community. Natural experimentation is utilized "whenever controlled experimentation is difficult." [1] Allow me to provide an example that is a bit less controversial than evolution. Modern day astronomers and astrophysicists observe that stars (including our sun) burn or give off a certain color of light. It is currently not feasible in terms of time or technology to send a scientist to a star to take samples of the burning gas it gives off. However, scientists are able to draw conclusions concerning the chemical makeup of the star because of the color of light it gives off.Experiments have been done in the lab to show that certain chemicals give off certain spectra of light when burned. By using this knowledge, scientists are able to determine the chemical composition of stars. [2]The same can be applied to evolution. Because it is generally not feasible in terms of the human lifespan to test evolution in a laboratory, scientists must make observations, and then make conclusions based on those observations against a background of laboratory experimentation. The theory of evolution rests on two major concepts, these being random mutation and natural selection. Both of these processes have been observed in the laboratory. Random mutation and natural selection have both been observed in a laboratory population of e.coli bacteria, where, after thousands of generations, a random mutation allowed one specimen of e.coli (and subsequently an entire population) to metabolise citrate, something that the bacteria normally cannot utilize. In another trial to test if the results were able to be repeated, they allowed the bacteria to reproduce for a similar number of generations, and then subjected them to a citrate-only diet. Only the bacteria that had evolved to eat citrate survived, an example of natural selection. The new population then consisted of bacteria that only fed on citrate. [3] In addition to these instances, speciation (the arisal of a new species) has been observed in the laboratory, mostly in plant species, as a result of both natural and artificial selection (almost the same as natural selection, but instead of things like climate, geography, etc. deciding which traits are desirable, human beings decide which traits are desirable). A long list of these experiments can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org...As you can see, if one considers natural experimentation (which is accepted and widely used in the scientific community, primarily in the fields of medicine, astronomy, geology, meterology, and paleontology) then evolution is easily verifiable by the scientific method. My opponent erroneously assumes that observations of nature do not count as experimentation, when in reality they do in these circumstances. These natural experiments are repeated over and over on a huge scale. One test of the validity of a scientific theory is how falsifiable it is. Evolution is a theory that encompasses all of life. As such, there is a tremendous number of ways in which it could theoretically be falsified, but it never satisfactorily has been. In contrast, creationism, by nature, cannot be falsified. It does not matter what evidence is unearthed in denial of creationism, because the traditional creationist argument is so broad, ambiguous, and reliant on faith, any and all evidence that is counterintuitive to it is able to be refuted. Because of this, creationism is not a valid scientific theory. It is not based in science, it is based in faith. Science is always changing. The theory of evolution has been tweaked and modified over the years (though one should not take this to mean that the theory of evolution is faulty or wrong, the gravitational theory was thought to only apply to objects on earth until Kepler and others discovered that gravity is also responsible for the movement and position of the planets. This did not make the original theory any less true, it merely modified it). Creationism is unchanging. It is based in religious texts (if we are assuming the traditional Christian concept of creation, if not correct me) that are by nature considered to be static. As such, creationism should not be considered science, and should not be taught in a science class. That is not to say it should not be taught at all (my Honors English courses dicussed several creation myths, including the Judeo-Christian one), but it should not be presented as a substitute or alternative to a scientific theory that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. The United States National Academy of Sciences as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both passed resolutions to the effect that, "the the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories." [4][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.newscientist.com...[4] A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.