How can evolution be science, when true science is based upon obsevation?

My favorite topic: Philosophy of Science!! Science is not just about observation to gain knowledge. In fact, such a definition is imprecise. For the sake of simplicity, I will just take up Falsificationism as an example. Falsificationism asserts a good scientific theory must meet all of the following criteria: specificity (descriptions have to be specific), testability, repeatability, verifiability and falsifiability. For instance I come up with a new theory: water freezes at 3 degrees under 1 atmospheric pressure. So i stated very specifically, they you can test my theory in a lab (testability). They you can repeat the test (testability) to verify if my theory works (verifiability) and finally see if my theory really matched your lab work. If it doesn't my theory has to be falsified (falsifiability). Note: falsifiability does not necessarily mean every theory has to be falsified, but any theory has to have a room for it; otherwise it will be a dogma.

When you think of Evolution, how do you repeat evolution in the first place? You may want to say "a reptile turning into a bird" and "apes becoming human" can count. They are two separate events so they have nothing to do with repetition.

How do you test? Some sceintists like to talk about Biston Betularia's (moth) population shift. Light colored moths were once majority; but now majority shifted to dark colored moths. The problem here is really the language of the scientists here. When they say "revolution" in the theory, they are literally talking about a reptile turning into a bird or apes becoming human; and never the population shift. I am not certain if shift in population is really good enough to say it is an evidence of evolution. If it is, then I wonder what does NOT count as evidence? (congenitally deformed babies: would they count as evolution too?)

Can you also observe evolution? That means you have to have a reptile in a lab and have it multiply itself until it turns into a bird or something. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is humanly impossible to do so.

In short, Evolution cannot be a good scientific theory according to Falsificationism. By the same token, how do you even test Creation? (Creation Lab 101: prepare God and ask him to make heaven and earth and observe how life pops out of nothing?)

In regards to observation, observation alone would not guarantee the accuracy of the world's picture a given scientific theory attempts to describe. Take a geocentric view of astronomy (Ptolemaic View) for example. It was done through observation and these days people find it hard to believe but if you are simply interested in navigating a ship from one place to another, geostatic view of astronomy is all you need. In fact, so long as your concern is on navigating a ship, geocentric view and heleocentric view (Copernican View) work exactly the same and Copernican System requires a lot more complex calculation. In other words, Geostatic view is a lot simpler and easier. If you think about it, Christopher Columbus used it.

The point is that from the same observation, you can derive two different theories, which give the same answer. So observation alone or the answer alone would not guarantee the accuracy of the world's view a theory depics. Perhaps if a theory deals with macro objects, a theory can be an accurate description; but when it goes into, for instance, Quantum Theory, we do not know if a theory is an accurate depiction of what is happening or to begin with if an observation is really an observation at all.

Is Science really science at all or just a useful myth? Here's a good saying

Beyond Science, there is religion. Beyond religion, there is science

You're right when you say that 'science is not fabricating a theory and then going in search of evidence to support and prove it.' However, you are incorrect to assume that is what happened with the Theory of Evolution. It wasn't until after Smith noticed the placement of fossils in the strata during the building of the canal system in England in the 18th century, and Alfred Wallace had studied beetles in the South Pacific, and Darwin had studied the breeding of pigeons that Darwin developed his theory. Therefore, it *is* based on 'observable, empirical, measurable evidence.'

Even though Evolution is still considered a theory, it's a lot less fantastical than the early belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun and everything else revolved around it. And *that* belief *was* based on direct observation!

Your understanding of science and theory are somewhat limited. A great deal of science is just exactly fabricating a theory to account for observed facts. But the theory usually suggests other facts to look for, and if they fail to support the theory or outright contradict it, the theory must be revised or abandoned. This is where science differs from religion. An angel of the lord does not appear, shake the scientist's hand, and tell him he's got it right. EVERY scientific theory is vulnerable to disproof; no religion allows itself to be. As it happens, evolution is one of the most solidly established scientific theories, along with quantum electrodynamics and a couple of others.

You are very much mistaken in your belief that evolution was a fabricated theory. The science of evolution was 'evolved' because of observations, such as those made by Darwin when he noticed the different evolutionary characteristics animals had on different islands (I know the whole Galapagos thing is pretty much an urban myth, but Darwin certainly made observations, just look at his Beagle notebooks). It has been perfected through the observation and examination of the world around us, and fossil evidence, which has been measured and evaluated by biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. There's certainly more evidence for evolution than there is for God creating Adam and Eve on a day when he was bored.

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats.

Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study.

The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

Darwin said his theory would be false if the fossil record did not show gradualism. The fossil record does not blend together by small changes so it should be obvious that Darwinian evolution did not occur. But some have blind faith that we evolved gradually from a single-cell organism - never mind the evidence of the fossil record. Jesus said he was God and the only way, and that he would prove it by his resurrection from the dead. Over 500 people saw Jesus physically alive after he rose from the dead. There would be no Christianity if this were not true. Christianity is faith in the gospel based on evidence.

The basic meaning of evolution is to change over time to survive your environment. I think this is undenieable and obvious. I do think that science sometimes can become almost "religious". Take the global warming issue for example. Politics and religion can blur science. Just keep it simple. Evolution exists--God created it! God may be an alien kid with a science experiment. (Look what I made Mom!!)

"My evolution has allowed me to recognize my existance. My need to survive has forced my evolution" Me

Any exception to the rule proves science/evolution untrue for everything or everyone.

Remember the FACT that the earth was flat? That wasn't all that long ago....

I guess mankind really hasn't come very damn far has it?

Any form of debate regarding this topic is such a waste.

Evolution is based on observation.