Kansas, God and Science

[flukerun]

I don't know if you guys/gals have seen this yet but they are going at it again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736155/?GT1=6542

[New York XC]

As a christian, this whole thing annoys me cause the two theories are not nessasarily contradictory! If you don't translate the Bible litterally, evolution can fit right in nicely. I personally think it's much adu about nothing.

[luv2run]

"Intelligent design" is the biggest BS in education. In science classes they already tell kids everything there is to know about it (nothing).

If you want to teach religion, teach a religion class. If you want to teach science, teach a science class. But don't try to package up religion into psuedo-science, offer up absolutely no proof about it, and then try to teach it as "biology."

[running high]

"That supposition is called “intelligent design.” Its leaders say that as a matter of science their principles are not religious."

It wouldn't be religion.

Even as a Christian I'm not necessarily completely absorbed in intelligent design being taught in clases. The only true material they could write is that it's a very probable explanation. Even that isn't needed when 85%+ of the world believes in a higher being.

I also strongly believe that God created science, and science can't prove God. Spontaneous generation is already very weak in itself, and most kids know about God already.

When I took biology I didn't know anyone who actually believed the material we were taught anyway.

Also like New York XC said, some interpret Genesis 1 not literally, meaning 6 days to God could mean much longer than we think. In the bible it states that fish were created first, then animals. Scientists have verified this.

[running high]

Intelligent Design is merely PC Jargon for "Creationism". It's religious. Bottom line.

I don't know where you went to school and took biology, but I'm glad I didn't go there. That's an excellent argument by the way, you are clearly a master of rhetoric: because a handful of other kids thought biology was wrong, then it's fine to teach everyone else that same thing!

The Bible also says something about the sun standing still. Just because there's one thing actually RIGHT in the Bible, does that mean that the entire thing is right? Bloody hell, I am so glad you are all not my lawyers.

I suppose it depends on your definition of religion. To me, teaching kids that a God created humans has many different branches and philosophies that get into different "religions." Do you honestly think that if you teach students there is a higher being then they are automatically a Christian/Muslim/Hindu (those are religions). Of course not!

The next point you dispute is just my perception. Most of America's youth is exposed to the ideas of Christianity/relgion anyways, meaning they will not eat up anything taught to them in class.

The last point you don't really need to get jittery over, it wasn't a justification for teaching creationism in class, it wasn't my logic for believing in the Bible, it was simply an explanation of New York xc's claim of evolution possible matching the Bible.

Noting to myself I haven't really taken a side on this I guess I'll tell. I think it would be good to include the actual debate in the book at the point of spontaneous generation. It could include the odds of having life generate on its own, and then cite the complexity of flagella as the reason some have come to believe in intelligent design. After all, evolution is a theory too.

[running high]

You have a distorted view of American youth. American youth is EXPOSED to the ideas but not always under the Title of Christianity. And American Youth is impressionable and gullible--that's almost the definition of YOUTH to begin with. You can force feed kids anything, and they will believe it.

Double-standard? You say American kids will eat anything they are force-fed.

1. Kids do not have to go to church
2. Kids have to go to school

THUS, they must be taught evolution. It is force-fed a tenfold more than religion.

MEANING that kids will believe evolution as taught in the classroom.

[running high]

So is Gravity. You can have a theory, and you can have a theory with a lot of information to back it up. This is the "information" you claim to have.

PS, "Complexity" is known as the Teleological argument, aka the "It's so complex and I don't understand it, therefore there must be a God!" argument, is not used by any well-informed or well-educated Christian Philosopher. Time to move on from that one.

I beg your pardon I used the wrong word. Evolution is a hypothesis. It is developed through the observations of species and fossils.

The Law of the Excluded Middle: Either God created it or God did not create it. There is no 3rd option.

We understand celium very well, it can be diagramed on scales of nanometers and observed extensively. We understand it so well it has become quite apparent that random chance did not form it. Also, where do you get that eminent Christian leaders don't use this?

EDIT: We are straying, we are supposed to be discussing whether it should be taught in schools or not. The bottom line is that evolution is not cut and dry. There is no experimental proof for evolution. It is a hypothesis developed through observation. Why then, should the issue not be presented as a debate?

[BudE 84]

As a christian, this whole thing annoys me cause the two theories are not nessasarily contradictory! If you don't translate the Bible litterally, evolution can fit right in nicely. I personally think it's much adu about nothing.

Exactly, as a student of biology I find it extremely hard to believe that evolution did not create the forms of life that we know today. As a Christian I also believe that God created life as it is by guiding life to evolve as it has. That is how I personally interpret the Bible. As for what should be taught, evolution is based on sound scientific evidence, and therefore is what is taught in science courses. Creationism, intelligent design, whatever you wanna call it, has no scientific basis and if it is to be taught then fine teach it in a religion studies class, but don't try to include it in science, it has no place there.

[Jwaksman]

MEANING that kids will believe evolution as taught in the classroom.



Yes, and they might be stuck "believing" other things that the Catholic Church tried hard to keep quiet. Like they might believe that awful lie that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. That our planet is actually more than 5765 years old. That the Earth is round.

Dear heavens, what would happen if the kids believed that the Earth is round! :eek:

[TrackDaddy]

As a christian, this whole thing annoys me cause the two theories are not nessasarily contradictory! If you don't translate the Bible litterally, evolution can fit right in nicely. I personally think it's much adu about nothing.Evolution is a lie.

Not just theory...but for some who've promoted it...a flat out lie.

EVERYTHING in the Bible in regard to an EVENT occurring IS LITERAL. In the sense that what it says will/or has occurred has or will occur as it's also a history book (i.e., Jesus' life, death and resurrection).

Sometimes HOW these things are explained to have occurred (creation for example) seems too simplistic or it doesn't fit our "theories."

But be advised...evolution AT BEST is a theory and at it's worse a promoted lie meant to do just what it's done...deceive.

Now there are contexts to deal with in the Bible, there are symbolic terms and descriptions ussed for many things such as in the book of Revelation. And there are also parables...but even then AS WE READ the Bible we are told that they are parables so it's not something you have to figure out. You're told.

It doesn't matter if you use modern terms or descriptions that Moses didn't use or not.

Creation occurred just as he (through God) said it did.

TRUTH!

[KenA55]

Evolution is a theory, as is gravitation, as previously mentioned. All science is theory, and the intent of science is always to put such theory to the test in new ways, new directions, in order to confirm or contradict theory through experimental means. Science is never about accepting theory as law, unquestioned. So theory either stands, gets modified and amended, or in some cases ends up getting a complete makeover based upon repeatable observation. If someone is selling evolution as unquestionable fact, well that's not science, it's faith. And if someone is selling intelligent design as unquestionable fact, the same is true.

Bottom line- no science class is presenting evolution as fact; they are laying it out as theory and presenting the evidence that supports it along with pointing out holes that make it less than perfect, less than complete, as a theory. The scientific mind is then invited to seek new evidence and probe in new areas where theory can be tested.

If you know how to go about testing the hypothesis of intelligent design according to such scientific criteria, and can deliver verifiable experimental results that reflect directly upon the question one way or another, then that would be science. Short of that, as said earlier, it has no place in science curricula. It defies scientific probing, because it's a matter of faith entirely.

Should we teach woodworking in music theory classes as well? I say keep the music theory in the music room and keep the woodworking down in the woodshop.

[TJPatriot]

Bottom line- no science class is presenting evolution as fact

Bottom line- When you show the kids only one possibility, they believe it is fact.

[Jwaksman]

So, all of the fundamentalists here that want to forcefeed kids creationism - can we teach the other religions also? I mean, if the theory is that we have to teach all of the different beliefs, then we have to teach the Buddhist view of the world also. And the Hindu view. And the Rwandan view. We can't just teach the Christian view, right?


On the other hand, since all science is a theory, perhaps we should stop teaching it? Or maybe we should just teach all the different sides? So, one day we'll teach you about gravity. Then we'll teach you about the theory that there is no gravity. Then we'll teach you that the world is flat.

Then, we can teach you that blacks are inferior to whites. Cause, you know, there are some people who believe that also. It's just a "theory" that we're all equal...



... I always thought that people dumb enough to believe in creationism were from poorer countries, or just southern hicks. It amazes me that someone can believe the Earth is flat and then also figure out how to use the Internet....

[luv2run]

There is no experimental proof for evolution. It is a hypothesis developed through observation.Oops. I think you've made some good arguments so far, but this is definitely a blooper.

I repeat your words back to you: "Evolution is a hypothesis devoloped through observation."

Observation being (in your own words) "experimental proof," such as fossils and carbon dating.

Evolution isn't a theory that fell from the sky, hit Darwin on the head, and then he picked it up and wrote in in a book. 150 years of experimental evidence have proven this theory to be ultimately correct.



Nobody is telling you that intelligent design is wrong, or a lie, or anything like that. The majority of people on Earth believe it to be true.

But there hasn't been experimental proof to back it up. Evolution is taught because it has been validated time and time again. There is no way to validate "intelligent design" theory.

An analogy? Let's say I presented a theory that insects such as termites, ants, and bees do not operate on instinct, but instead the entire colony functions together as a giant "brain" in the same way that the cells of a human brain work together to think.

This is an interesting theory, and it could be true, but there's no scientific data for it. If I found some data, we could teach that as opposed to the "instinct" theory.

Bottom line is, in a science class you teach science. If it has been proven and validated by the scientific method and is agreed upon by the scientists who for hundreds of years have made it their life's work to prove these things, then you can teach it. But intelligent design is like any other theory -- it requires proof to be taught (in science classes). Evolution has that proof.

[luv2run]

Evolution is a lie.

[...]

Creation occurred just as he (through God) said it did.

TRUTH!Hmmm ... where to begin ... ?

It basically boils down to the following. (The word "FACT" designates something that has been proven true by those who study it.)

Do you believe the FACT that DNA exists? (If not ... well, I'm sorry.)

Do you believe the FACT that DNA can mutate into different forms, due to effects such as cosmic rays and natural radiation? (If not, I urge you to explore this topic online.)

If so, you agree that evolution exists.

I urge anyone with an interest in this thread to read the following article, which explores the pros and cons of the theory of evolution.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm


Imagine, for example, a bunch of identical E. coli cells that are living in a petri dish. [...]

Now, imagine that someone pours an antibiotic into the petri dish. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by gumming up one of the enzymes that the bacteria needs to live. For example, one common antibiotic gums up the enzyme process that builds the cell wall. Without the ability to add to the cell wall, the bacteria cannot reproduce, and eventually they die.

When the antibiotic enters the dish, all of the bacteria should die. But imagine that, among the many millions of bacteria living in the dish, one of them acquires a mutation that makes its cell-wall-building enzyme different from the norm. Because of the difference, the antibiotic molecule does not attach properly to the enzyme, and therefore does not affect it. That one E. coli cell will survive, and since all of its neighbors are dead, it can reproduce and take over the petri dish. There is now a strain of E. coli that is immune to that particular antibiotic. In this example, you can see evolution at work. A random DNA mutation created an E. coli cell that is unique. The cell is unaffected by the antibiotic that kills all of its neighbors. This unique cell, in the environment of that petri dish, is able to survive.

[CTsnapple]

PS, "Complexity" is known as the Teleological argument, aka the "It's so complex and I don't understand it, therefore there must be a God!" argument, is not used by any well-informed or well-educated Christian Philosopher. Time to move on from that one.


Leibniz? Although he may have had more of an ontological argument.

[KenA55]

Bottom line- When you show the kids only one possibility, they believe it is fact.

Then they are placing their faith in science, and have chosen to accept certain mental images, imagined to arise from various sensual inputs, and processed through logical framework derived from those very images themselves- as hard fact. This is a philosophical choice that happens, or not, whether you expose them to this particular theory, or not.

Some of them may come to believe in gravitation as well; but the place for considering options in how much weight to apply to the various means available and imaginable, for deciding the questions involving assigning faith and choosing to believe in particular realities as hard fact- these are philosophical questions that belong in a philosophy class, immeasurable by scientific method, since science begins with the premise that sensory input will be the sole basis for structuring logic and determining realities.

So intelligent design propositions that present no sensory evidence one way or another for examination fall outside of the arena of science- just as does scientific methodology itself. This doesn't mean that either can't be presented in the proper forum- but science itself has no opinion one way or another as to their validity.

[running high]

If someone is selling evolution as unquestionable fact, well that's not science, it's faith.

Bottom line- no science class is presenting evolution as fact; they are laying it out as theory and presenting the evidence that supports it along with pointing out holes that make it less than perfect, less than complete, as a theory.





If what you stated first (evolution isn't taught as fact) was true then I would be fine with it. However, it's far from the truth.

True story: My friend's mom e-mailed the science teacher asking if he would present the issue as a debate. He wrote back saying "We teach fact here at (my school name)" And that was all he said!

In the curriculum it was written as fact. It told when humans appeared, the history of the earth, what the atmosphere used to be like.

As long as evolution has holes, doubts, speculation attached to it (which, personally, I think it always will :D ) then the side of intelligent-design should be presented.

[running high]

On the other hand, since all science is a theory, perhaps we should stop teaching it? Or maybe we should just teach all the different sides? So, one day we'll teach you about gravity. Then we'll teach you about the theory that there is no gravity. Then we'll teach you that the world is flat.



I'm not sure if you're aware, but evolution is a special case. It has a significant opposition and is more disputable than you're irrelevant examples. Also: "The world is round" is a theory?

I'll have to look up the writings of the Hindus and Bhuddists the talk about that. Although we do live in America, and I don't believe the Hindus are fighting for their side to be taught in schools.

[KenA55]

Of course 'the world is round' is a theory, 'provable and verifiable' only through images floating around in each's consciousness, that most of us seem capable of agreeing upon. Whether or not such 'proof' based on sensory input and consensus agreement constitutes 'hard fact' is completely a matter of faith.

[KenA55]

True story: My friend's mom e-mailed the science teacher asking if he would present the issue as a debate. He wrote back saying "We teach fact here at (my school name)" And that was all he said!


I suspect that the fact that he presumably teaches involves observed and measured evidence that supports the theory. But of course even such fact is wrapped in the layers of theory that constitute age measurement science, genetic similarities, and the like. Any true scientific mind must be very careful with the simple little word, 'fact'- and will avoid self-delusion and maintain scientific skepticism better by using terms such as 'observation' and 'measurement' instead.

The problem with purely philosophical theory again, is that it doesn't lend itself to scientific methods of examination, and there is no science therefore to report upon to the student. That's why it isn't science, and doesn't belong in the science classroom except as informal and unscientific speculation, do we want our legislatures insisting that the breaststroke event be included in t&f despite the fact that it's swimming, not track and field?

Hanging a particular name on a particular class that's offered implies a responsibility, for the most part at least, to contain the content of that particular class to that particular area of education in a reasonable way. and not go off on multiple and unreasonable tangents. I would love to see this sort of philosophical questioning offered, but not within the format of a science class.

The idea of 'outside' intelligent design of our existence contains scientific method and analysis as part of that structure, along with many other issues of philosophical and theological nature. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Science cannot contain or address this issue in any meaningful scientific way. Scientific methodology has a definite place as an aspect of any general philosophy curriculum, but these purely philosophical questions shouldn't be allowed to clutter up the science curriculum. A simple matter of good housekeeping, it seems to me.

[running high]

Of course 'the world is round' is a theory, 'provable and verifiable' only through images floating around in each's consciousness, that most of us seem capable of agreeing upon. Whether or not such 'proof' based on sensory input and consensus agreement constitutes 'hard fact' is completely a matter of faith.

I was thinking satellite images when I asked.

[running high]

Observation being (in your own words) "experimental proof," such as fossils and carbon dating.

Evolution isn't a theory that fell from the sky, hit Darwin on the head, and then he picked it up and wrote in in a book. 150 years of experimental evidence have proven this theory to be ultimately correct.


Since Darwin, scientists have been able to find about 250,000 fossils. They claim that they are from millions of years ago. Although this claim, none of the fossils are in transitional form or opposing to the bone structures of the same creatures today. Doesn't seem to prove evolution much to me.

Let's quickly define a theory

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The rest of these "experiments" are observations of animals. Oh and FYI, I believe in micro-evolution.

[running high]

The problem with purely philosophical theory again, is that it doesn't lend itself to scientific methods of examination, and there is no science therefore to report upon to the student. That's why it isn't science, and doesn't belong in the science classroom except as informal and unscientific speculation, do we want our legislatures insisting that the breaststroke event be included in t&f despite the fact that it's swimming, not track and field?


The idea of 'outside' intelligent design of our existence contains scientific method and analysis as part of that structure, along with many other issues of philosophical and theological nature. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Science cannot contain or address this issue in any meaningful scientific way. Scientific methodology has a definite place as an aspect of any general philosophy curriculum, but these purely philosophical questions shouldn't be allowed to clutter up the science curriculum. A simple matter of good housekeeping, it seems to me.

Again, as long as evolution has enough holes and counteracting arguments to still require belief to hold it as fact, then it must be presented as a debate. Both have belief = both must be presented.

I agree with you that science cannot prove God. But let's realize, evolution vs. creationism would not be a debate if there were not two sides to the argument. Both should be presented.

In my class, which I took last year, there was no mention of any doubt in any of the material. Not one hint of evidence against this "theory" was presented at all! In my eyes, that's a problem that needs fixing.

[running high]

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. " Robert M. Pirsig

If TrackDaddy presents what he believes, that mean he doesn't believe it??

The sun example is stupid. No one declares the sun will rise because there are none that oppose the notion. Duh.

[Biscuit_AQ]

uh, thats partly the point.

[running high]

Okay, Mr. Pirsig is drawing a comparison. He states that people who declare their beliefs aren't sure of them. But the difference is TrackDaddy is stating his belief most likely not for reassurance, but because he is communicating them to people who do not share the same beliefs. Everyone believes the sun will rise, thus no one shouts it. Really the only thing the quote says is that this guy doesnt believe in anything.

[BudE 84]

Since Darwin, scientists have been able to find about 250,000 fossils. They claim that they are from millions of years ago. Although this claim, none of the fossils are in transitional form or opposing to the bone structures of the same creatures today. Doesn't seem to prove evolution much to me.

Fossils from many, many groups of animals have been found that show transitional states between classes of animals, such as between fish and amphibians with animals such as lobe-finned fish and early marine tetrapods with clearly formed bones of legs and amphibian like body structures. There are transitional fossils showing reptilian animals that likely were the ancestors of birds, such as archaeopteryx, whose fossil records even show it to have had feathers. Not to mention the introduction of mammals, which is by far the most well understood transition known between classes of animals, since it has had the most attention. There are many fossil records of early mammal like reptiles that show, as you look at less and less older fossils, the gradual transition between a reptiles and mammals. This is not to even mention humans, for which we have discovered fossils of numerous extinct species of transition over the last few millions years between ourselves and an earlier apelike ancestor. Australopithecus afarensis, australopithecus africanus, homo habilis, and homo erectus are a just a few i remember, plus neanderthals fossil records which are believed to have probably not been direct ancestors, but rather a close relative from a recent common ancestor. And this all just from what I can remember at the moment, and only evidence from what are thought of as the major animal classes. Evolution is a theory and not fact, which is mostly just because we weren't around to observe it and therefore can't PROVE it, though just about all evidence from fossil records, and from the resemblances in the body makeup of related species on levels ranging from the genetic level to the level of bone structures and such, support the theory of evolution as likely to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TrackDaddy]

I encourage everyone here to completely ignore everything TrackDaddy says.LOL

And why, pray tell, on God's green Earth...should anyone listen to you?

[TrackDaddy]

Evolution is a theory, as is gravitation, as previously mentioned. All science is theory, and the intent of science is always to put such theory to the test in new ways, new directions, in order to confirm or contradict theory through experimental means. Science is never about accepting theory as law, unquestioned. So theory either stands, gets modified and amended, or in some cases ends up getting a complete makeover based upon repeatable observation. If someone is selling evolution as unquestionable fact, well that's not science, it's faith. And if someone is selling intelligent design as unquestionable fact, the same is true.

Bottom line- no science class is presenting evolution as fact; they are laying it out as theory and presenting the evidence that supports it along with pointing out holes that make it less than perfect, less than complete, as a theory. The scientific mind is then invited to seek new evidence and probe in new areas where theory can be tested.

If you know how to go about testing the hypothesis of intelligent design according to such scientific criteria, and can deliver verifiable experimental results that reflect directly upon the question one way or another, then that would be science. Short of that, as said earlier, it has no place in science curricula. It defies scientific probing, because it's a matter of faith entirely.

Should we teach woodworking in music theory classes as well? I say keep the music theory in the music room and keep the woodworking down in the woodshop.Faith?

Well, evolution isn't associated with 'faith' at all.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen."

Intelligent design is based on hope, reason and evidence (both seen and unseen).

Evolution... although allegedly still taught as theory (which is all it is, albeit misguided), is actually promoted as truth. Just read the misguided posts in this thread.

And it, unlike intelligent design, is completely devoid of reason, hope and unseen evidence.

Completely.

[TrackDaddy]

Plus, how the hell would they teach it? "God Created Earth." End of class!Uh...yeah.

I mean that's what happened.

I guess the instructor could say a lot fancy meaningless words to describe what is essentially plain.

It still wouldn't satisfy the really smart folk... like you and Jwaks.

You'll have no part of the truth.

[luv2run]

And why, pray tell, on God's green Earth...should anyone listen to you?It's called PROOF, buddy. Evolution has it. You don't.

Not that I'm telling you what to believe. But teaching kids that something which is not even a theory, but just a guess of "TrackDaddy says it happened like this" is simply wrong.

Runninghigh, I agree that it would be a good dea to briefly lay out the drawbacks with the evolution theory. But it's not going to matter. Those like TD will deny it no matter what; those who are rational and look at the facts will accept it.

TD, did you read that article yet?

[KenA55]

I was thinking satellite images when I asked.

Exactly- which are, in any meaningful and complete analysis, little electric flashes and chemical signals occuring within our skulls, reflecting what may or may not exist somewhere out there beyond our optic nerves. All this, of course, hingeing on the wild and unprovable theory that we possess such nerves and brain tissue in the first place.

[running high]

Seems like you need this one spelled out for you. Robert Pirsig is saying that nobody gets fanatical over anything that is already known as fact because there is no need. Things that are doubtful, however, people become fanatical over. For example, religion. The very root of belief is doubt, but I have a feeling you won't understand what that means.

I don't want to get too into this. I understood it. The only difference is our perception of TrackDaddy. You believe him to be "fanatical," while I thought he was just expressing his view.

[TrackDaddy]

It's called PROOF, buddy. Evolution has it. You don't.

Not that I'm telling you what to believe. But teaching kids that something which is not even a theory, but just a guess of "TrackDaddy says it happened like this" is simply wrong.

Runninghigh, I agree that it would be a good dea to briefly lay out the drawbacks with the evolution theory. But it's not going to matter. Those like TD will deny it no matter what; those who are rational and look at the facts will accept it.

TD, did you read that article yet?I did a focused skim of the article.

Luv...

Evolution will never be proven. It's nothing more than man's inate flaw to reject that he is not supreme and to disbelieve what cannot be seen.

This is not difficult. There is nothing to figure out.

We are here for a reason...a purpose.

Not by chance.

Look at your hand.

[running high]

(Words x Many)

Looks like my biology book needs rewriting. In fact, everything I've ever read about evolution needs remodified! I've heard about and seen "Lucy" and am far from belief that we were once apes. If you'd refer me I'll look into all the other transitional fossils that scientists seem to have found.

[running high]

Exactly- which are, in any meaningful and complete analysis, little electric flashes and chemical signals occuring within our skulls, reflecting what may or may not exist somewhere out there beyond our optic nerves. All this, of course, hingeing on the wild and unprovable theory that we possess such nerves and brain tissue in the first place.

LOL...we're going to start talking about The Matrix aren't we? Check the sig, I'm well informed :D

[luv2run]

runninghigh, I believe your definition of a theory ("An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture") is good for everyday use, but when a scientist calls something a "theory" he means something like:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[A]n explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.



A lot of people like to argue, "Evolution is just a theory!" Because their definition of theory is the same as yours.

But the reason that evolution is designated as a scientific "theory" is that it fits and explains natural phenomena, and it also is widely tested and accepted.

[running high]

(In response to luv2run)

First, your post assumes evolution is true by all accounts. If that were true, we would not be having this debate.

Let me compare the definitions:

1. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

2. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

3. An explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.


In #1: limited information and knowledge = observations of what scientists have, obviously resources are limited since much of the evolutionary model describes things millions of years ago. They assume it happened, obviously, since they weren't there. Ask KenA55 about assumptions lol.

2. Evolution is a set of statements (true!), it is devised (true!), to explain a group of facts or phenomena (false! phenomena can be seen, I can't see evolution!), especially one that has been repeatedly tested (tests are performed, and from the results, inferences and hypothesis are made)....(repeat)....

3. An explanation or model (true!) based on observation(true!), experimentation(true! experiments are conducted), and reasoning (true! they do have reasons for their inferences), especially one that has been tested (true! tests have been conducted) and confirmed (false! evolution has not been confirmed) as a general principle (true! it is a general principle among scientists) .....(repeat).....

[KenA55]

In my class, which I took last year, there was no mention of any doubt in any of the material. Not one hint of evidence against this "theory" was presented at all! In my eyes, that's a problem that needs fixing.

Granted, they may not be doing a superlative job of touching bases often enough with the basics of scientific method in the first place- again the stuff about observation, measurement, repeatable verification by others, and so on. The things that the scientific method requires before presenting something as scientific 'fact' (which good scientists won't do with regard to the theory of evolution itself, but may do regarding certain particular pieces of evidence used to support the theory, that have stood up well to such examination).

Scientific methodology involves a huge leap of faith from the outset- faith that observation bears a relationship to 'reality,' that consistency will occur between observation, prediction, result- and the time-based cause-and-effect logical structure that we have built to connect them. We rely heavily on science because the results are predictable when theory holds; it works well within this logical structure.

So when the scientist presents something as scientific fact, it doesn't mean it's 'real' except in the sense that the observation is observable, measurable, predictable and verifiable by any who wish to put the observation to the same test. That's a scientist's definition of fact. If the scientist chooses to assign deeper layers of meaning, that is exactly the moment when he ceases to be a scientist. He is expressing his faith, and that has no more bearing in the science classroom than any other expression of faith.

When the layman hears the word 'fact,' he assumes too often that there's an implication that this particular observation is being sold as immutable, anassailable, unchanging; as real as anything can really be. Beyond argument.
But of course nothing like that is ever beyond argument; an intelligent designer behind the curtain and unseen, if you choose to place faith in that direction, holds all the chips and controls the cards that are dealt. You see exactly what he wishes you to see, and consistent observation/logic/conclusion will be on the table anytime he wishes to set up the game accordingly. In such a scenario, we observe evidence pointing at evolution of species as a strong possibility because that is exactly what the intelligent designer has set up for us to observe.

Differing interpretations of the word 'fact' are what get scientists in trouble with society as a whole. Unfortunate that other language hasn't been substituted that reflects actual circumstances more precisely.

Let's not downgrade high philosophical speculation by putting it in the science classroom, where it gets limited and measured by the rules of that particular game. Let science remain true to what it is, and let philosophy/theology remain true to what it is. Would you ask your pastor to lecture on genetics? Stop asking your geneticists to deliver sermons on the Book of Genesis.

[Jwaksman]

Fundamentalists making this "Evolution is a Theory" argument simply do not understand how science works.


Basically all of science is a "Theory." The word "Theory" means a different thing to scientists than it does to normal people. Normal people would consider "the CIA assassinated JFK" a theory - a scientist would not.


Gravity is a theory. The Theory of Relativity is a theory. Do you not want to teach those either????


I can't believe we're having this argument in the 21st century... :rolleyes:

[KenA55]

LOL...we're going to start talking about The Matrix aren't we? Check the sig, I'm well informed :D

I'm not, never seen it.

[running high]

Nice post articulating what you feel Ken.

I really haven't much to say to it. You have your stance, I have mine.

Although, I will say, I hear what you are saying. I am going to seek more information and views on the topic. I understand that you wouldn't want to denote philosophy into the setting where it must be based on reason. Regardless, things in the classroom are still not as they should be.

gg

[running high]

Gravity is a theory. The Theory of Relativity is a theory. Do you not want to teach those either????

:rolleyes:

Jwaks, cmon man! Evolution has an opposing side. Counteractive arguments. Entire books outlining its every flaw!

I see none of those things for the other irrelevant theories you suggested. Also, we already went through this on page 1.

EDIT: I actually went back to page one and se you refered to the Catholic church. I would like to personally say that I am not Catholic and disagree with a lot of things they do.

[running high]

I'm not, never seen it.

Really? It's a good movie if you like to think and see awesome action sequences. Highly recommended.

[Jwaksman]

Relativity has opposing sides also. In the 1930's in Germany, a large group of people got together to disprove the theory of relativity. This group including Nobel Prize winners. They would have large meetings, with thousands of people showing up. Albert Einstein used to buy box seats to watch and laugh his butt off.


Yes, there are people opposed to evolution. They're called idiots. No university would think of hiring a creationist as a biology teacher.


Go google the Flat Earth Society. Just cause people believe it doesn't mean that it's true.

[Dyenimator]

Yeah, evolution has happened...












... thanks to God.

[jaygray]

This topic is a recurring bleb, or pustule, in courtrooms and in the dyestat legends lounge. Here's hoping that we evolve out of discussing it any more.

[Sebrle]

Will cows ever evolve the ability to state, “I don’t want to be a quarter-pounder?”

[jrun]

Stater of the Obvious sez:

Why are there still monkeys in the zoo?

[MoMo]

As I've said before, evolution is VISIBLE. Generations of fruit flies can be SEEN evolving under laboratory conditions, and in the space of a relatively short (in human years) period. Now, if that is the case, there is absolutely NO reason to think this wouldn't happen over a longer period, and in fact there is EVERY reason to believe that it would -- and has; science, evidence and logic converge here.

That shouldn't keep anyone who wants from seeing God's hand in the incredibly life-assuring, life-preserving, life-affirming ability to evolve. Evolution can be seen as the most powerful of tools for long-term survival. Without it, we'd all be dumb (though possibly happy) microbes ... or simple drab co*kroaches, skittering mindlessly over primitive shores.

[luv2run]

(false! phenomena can be seen, I can't see evolution!)

[...]

(false! evolution has not been confirmed)See, that's where you and the scientists disagree. According to current scientific knowledge, evolution has been generally confirmed and it does explain certain phenomena.

You are correct, you can't see evolution. But you can see certain phenomena such as fossils, bugs that grow new wings, viruses that adapt to antibiotics, etc etc etc. And evolution is a theory that does explain these phenomena.

Yes, you will probably say that it explains only microevolution but not macro. I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other on this point.

[MoMo]

the micro v. macro distinction here is completely meaningless.

micro evolution is viewable, study-able, confirmable over a period of many days, weeks or months. it does not stop at the end of the study period. it ALWAYS continues. soon, short term becomes medium term; medium term turns into long term.

micro PROVES macro.

now, we may not be able to document every step in the evolution of every species -- of course not -- but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[TrackDaddy]

When I retire, I may move to Kansas.

[UpstateRunner]

Yeah, evolution has happened...












... thanks to God.

Thank you. Why does evolution have to be in any way against the bible? If god created the world out of earth, whose to say evolution isn't his way of creation? No where in the bible does it ever say "god did not use evolution to create the world" so who are we to say that? And the comparison of creationists to the Flat Earth Society is brilliant i must say.

[luv2run]

When I retire, I may move to Kansas.When I move to Kansas, I may retire.

...if I'm a teacher....