Evolution Debate ...
- Thread starter Planet_EN
- Start date
ol' dawg said:
That one really continues to bug me, dismissing the legitimate findings of science as "just a theory," as if they were just idle guesses or speculations. The word "theory" has both a strong sense and a weak sense, and you're using it in the weak sense as if it applied to the strong sense. In the weak sense it means a belief or speculation, and that's how you're using it. In the strong sense it means a coherent body of observations, ideas, information, and analyses that describe and explain a range of phenomena. In the strong sense there are also scientific and non-scientific theories. Scientific ones are empirical, falsifiable, predictive, and testable. Non-scientific ones fail one or more of those four qualities of scientific ones. Psychoanalysis, for instance, is empirical, but it's not falsifiable, predictive, or testable.
So let's have no more of this "just a theory" crap about matters scientific.
That's using it in the weak sense again; it would be better called a hypothesis, not a theory. String theory in its multiple forms is built up around a somewhat more complex version of that hypothesis.
And just to tie off the loose end I left in my previous post, Intelligent Design is a theory in the strong sense, but it's not empirical, not testable, not predictive, and not falsifiable, so it's not scientific. It's metaphysical. And like a lot of metaphysics, it's useless as an explanation of anything in the real world.
Just to add a little here, lo, these many years since I went to school. All the older physical laws, for example, Charles law, Boyles law, the laws of thermodynamics are a given today. Quantum physics knocked a few things for a loop for a while but most scientists, probably all physicists, would argue that science is no longer a theory. It just is. There is still no unified string theory, but maybe we don't need one.
Dexter Sinister said:
First of all, I will defer to you having more knowledge of things scientific and physical.
My concern is that when a "coherent body of observations, ideas, information, and analyses that describe and explain a range of phenomena" is introduced to methods of observation that go beyond previous methods of observation (for example a more powerful microscope) the explanation changes, it is more complete. And because there are new ways of testing old data what do you call it when what was the previous explanation no longer is the full explanation?
My original statement said that until we know everything we cannot categorically state that an explanation is the final truth and there are no more facts to observe. We may test the theory repeatedly, but what do we call it when the result is different from what we expected according to our theory? What happens when we add another component to the testing? When we have all knowledge, omniscience, then we will know how it all fits together and until we reach this point our "facts" can change.
Just because we don't have the observation tools available at this moment does not mean we never will have those tools, and when we have those tools we will have a new explanation. Not necessarily a different explanation, but at least a more complete explanation. I call this explanation a theory. When I say "just a theory" I am not belittling the scientific method, I am just suggesting that the final answer is not available yet.
Only "Evolution" explains all the "evidence" for the orgins of life. The popular culture use of the "theory" is not the same as a scientific theory.
scientific theory:
resulting from the application of the scientific method, is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomena based on extensive evidence and testing. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered
from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
scientific theory:
resulting from the application of the scientific method, is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomena based on extensive evidence and testing. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered
from observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Well, no thoughtful scientist is likely to claim any theory's a full explanation, but that aside, we call it the same thing we called it before. Newtons Laws are still Newton's Laws,and they're still in wide use. Newtonian dynamics is all NASA uses to calculate spacecraft trajectories. (General relativity is more accurate, but the difference is so trivial it's not worth the extra effort--and it's substantial--to calculate such routine stuff with it.) It's the new explanation that gets called something else. Special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, are all new stuff; the old stuff is still called whatever it was called before.ol' dawg said:
Right, and no scientist worthy of the name would disagree. There are no final truths in the scientific view, except for relatively trivial or very broad general statements. The claim that the earth orbits the sun, for instance, is a fact beyond dispute, as does the statement that living things evolve, so in a sense we could claim those are final truths. The devil's in the details.
A surprise? :wink: Generally, first it's called an anomaly, on the initial assumption that something went wrong with the testing procedure or the observations or the data recording or something. And 99+% of the time that's exactly what it turns out to be. If other reputable people (and it has to be lots of other people, not just a couple of nerdy weirdos working in somebody's basement) get the same result, inconsistent with theory, it becomes an unresolved problem, and there will be a flurry of attempts to explain it within the limits of the theory. Scientists are very conservative with their theories, they hate to throw away a good one that's worked well for a long time. And eventually the theory will be modified or replaced by a new one that accounts correctly for the original anomalous observation.
Right again, and that's exactly what's wrong with Intelligent Design as a theory, as I tried to explain to Extrafire about a hundred times in this thread. ID implicitly assumes we'll never have those tools, they don't exist, and ID itself is the final truth.
And probably never will be, if the past is any guide. Understood though; I do appreciate your more detailed explanation of what you meant. Despite a lifetime of training and work in science, I'm just as capable of irrationality and emotional reactions as the next guy. It was the phrase "just a theory" that set me off; that's the single most common criticism creationists throw at the theory of evolution, the clear implication being that it's just an idle speculation of no particular substance. It's a deliberate confusion of different meanings, which they do a lot, and it's both ignorant and dishonest.
You, however, appear to be neither. Good input, glad you're aboard.
Dexter Sinister said:
Preview is your friend, Dexter; that's a horrible sentence. Let's try it this way: The claim that the earth orbits the sun, for instance, is a fact beyond dispute, as is the statement that living things evolve... <sigh> That's what happens when you edit on the fly and arrogantly assume you know what you're doing...
That's okay Dex...I was writing a photo thing earlier today and it sounded like I was advocating lining school children up alphabetically and machine-gunning them. Come to think of it, if you talk to most school photographers, they'd likely think that was a great idea.
I had an evolution question, but now I've completely forgotten what it was.
I had an evolution question, but now I've completely forgotten what it was.
Hello Dexter
Firstly, let me thank you for the welcome, as you see I am an infrequent visitor.
Secondly, it seems we are on a similar page afterall.
Thirdly, thank you for differentiating between hypothesis and theory, I realize I have been interchanging those words, and therefore was incorrect in some instances.
You mentioned the phrase "just a theory" is a button pusher. For me, it's people who have made science their religion. For example, an acquaintance, who is a medical doctor, says it has to be scientically provable before he'll believe something. Well, it seems he is quite selective in what he accepts as research; he is either ignorant of or ignores the research done by European Osteopaths. According to your definition, he wouldn't qualify as a serious, worthwhile scientist. But I do get irritated when he belittles the findings of people who disagree with his point of view. He tells people they should use critical thinking, but doesn't accept answers other than his own.
I was probably disageeing with him more than you in previous posts.
However, I have to admit you have given me a challenge. I am unfamilar with ID, and am still not convinced I really want to read this entire thread to enjoy your debate about ID.
I googled ID and found the following quotes:
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger*
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
The quotes are from skepdic.com
Because I haven't read your debate with Extrafire, I'm not sure if these ideas have been presented previously.
Firstly, let me thank you for the welcome, as you see I am an infrequent visitor.
Secondly, it seems we are on a similar page afterall.
Thirdly, thank you for differentiating between hypothesis and theory, I realize I have been interchanging those words, and therefore was incorrect in some instances.
You mentioned the phrase "just a theory" is a button pusher. For me, it's people who have made science their religion. For example, an acquaintance, who is a medical doctor, says it has to be scientically provable before he'll believe something. Well, it seems he is quite selective in what he accepts as research; he is either ignorant of or ignores the research done by European Osteopaths. According to your definition, he wouldn't qualify as a serious, worthwhile scientist. But I do get irritated when he belittles the findings of people who disagree with his point of view. He tells people they should use critical thinking, but doesn't accept answers other than his own.
I was probably disageeing with him more than you in previous posts.
However, I have to admit you have given me a challenge. I am unfamilar with ID, and am still not convinced I really want to read this entire thread to enjoy your debate about ID.
I googled ID and found the following quotes:
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger*
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
The quotes are from skepdic.com
Because I haven't read your debate with Extrafire, I'm not sure if these ideas have been presented previously.
ol' dawg said:
They have. In fact I think I quoted the first two myself somewhere in here. If you just read the entry on Intelligent Design at skepdic.com, you'll see a pretty good summary of both my position and Extrafire's, so no need to read all 35+ pages of this thread. Unless you feel like amusing yourself with some examples of sloppy thinking. :wink:
//probably all physicists, would argue that science is no longer a theory. It just is.//
Uh, no. No scientist would argue that. The nature of the scientific method as it grew out of western philosophy is to doubt and question even its own results - hence Einstien rewrites Newton who rewrote Galileo who rewrote......etc.
Science is a method for describing our physical world by analogy to something else - a number system, for example.
Aristotle pointed this out, quite some time ago. ("a description of a thing can never be the thing itself" - or something to that effect. )
I.D. is simply the unverifiable hypothesis that anything we do not understand = godmustadunnit. Nothing more.
Such as the actual process of evolution, for example (Natural Selection) that Christers frequently conflate with big bang and everything else under the sun that casts doubt on their chosen superstition.
I am disappointed in this thread - thought Canucks were more educated than the blathering nonsense on display here.
That is all.
Uh, no. No scientist would argue that. The nature of the scientific method as it grew out of western philosophy is to doubt and question even its own results - hence Einstien rewrites Newton who rewrote Galileo who rewrote......etc.
Science is a method for describing our physical world by analogy to something else - a number system, for example.
Aristotle pointed this out, quite some time ago. ("a description of a thing can never be the thing itself" - or something to that effect. )
I.D. is simply the unverifiable hypothesis that anything we do not understand = godmustadunnit. Nothing more.
Such as the actual process of evolution, for example (Natural Selection) that Christers frequently conflate with big bang and everything else under the sun that casts doubt on their chosen superstition.
I am disappointed in this thread - thought Canucks were more educated than the blathering nonsense on display here.
That is all.
Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...
Surely you don't think all of it's blathering nonsense? Seems to me, having read every post at least once and written many of them myself, that those who spout blathering nonsense are significantly outnumbered by the clear-headed. There are fools everywhere though, even in Canada. :wink: If everybody was properly educated, this thread wouldn't exist, as Reverend Blair implicitly pointed out right at the beginning.
Good observations though. You seem like a sensible and well informed fellow. This is the first post of yours I recall seeing; I hope you stick around.
Steve French said:
Surely you don't think all of it's blathering nonsense? Seems to me, having read every post at least once and written many of them myself, that those who spout blathering nonsense are significantly outnumbered by the clear-headed. There are fools everywhere though, even in Canada. :wink: If everybody was properly educated, this thread wouldn't exist, as Reverend Blair implicitly pointed out right at the beginning.
Good observations though. You seem like a sensible and well informed fellow. This is the first post of yours I recall seeing; I hope you stick around.
Doubts on evolution cost Kansas access to U.S. science curriculum
Washington -- In a new escalation of the nation's culture war over the teaching of evolution, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association announced Thursday that they will not allow Kansas to use key science education materials developed by the two organizations.
The refusal came after the groups reviewed the latest draft of the Kansas Department of Education's new science education standards and concluded that they overemphasize uncertainties about the theory of evolution and fail to make clear that supernatural phenomena have no place in science.
Religion is not science if you ask me. Kansas must have a lot of religious right people, I guess.
Click link at top for rest of article.
Washington -- In a new escalation of the nation's culture war over the teaching of evolution, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association announced Thursday that they will not allow Kansas to use key science education materials developed by the two organizations.
The refusal came after the groups reviewed the latest draft of the Kansas Department of Education's new science education standards and concluded that they overemphasize uncertainties about the theory of evolution and fail to make clear that supernatural phenomena have no place in science.
Religion is not science if you ask me. Kansas must have a lot of religious right people, I guess.
Click link at top for rest of article.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? Looks to me like they banned the texts because they were putting intelligent design in a favourable light; not vice-versa.
Is everybody aware that the Catholic church actually adopted evolution as the way they believe that God created the world? There are tons of religious people who accept that evolution is the way things were made; with supernatural processes put in place by God, myself included.
http://www.ncseweb.org/
Intelligent design is a religious concept, based on the supernatural....it has nothing to do with science, and does not belong in a science class, especially through the back door, based on lies and mis-respresentation.
Intelligent design is a religious concept, based on the supernatural....it has nothing to do with science, and does not belong in a science class, especially through the back door, based on lies and mis-respresentation.