Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times
"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."
"Dunno who, if anyone, said evolution is a law. It's not a law. There is a scientific theory of evolution. "
The above is what the author of this article stated.
I was having fun with the concept of evolution law.
"Utterly and completely false, in *two* different ways in a single setence.
Just once I wish you anti-evolution zealots would try to *understand* the topic and its adherents before you go spouting off your wild fantasies about it."
Welll Ich, I know what Genesis says, and that theory is in complete opposition with what Genesis says. So you tell me were God fits into your world of evolution.
"Now evolution deals specifically with the natural world as though the supernatural does not exist which is at the core of my disagreement."
Name ONE scientific theory that does otherwise. Just one.
Intelligent Design (but it's supposed to be a secret).
"Intelligent Design (but it's supposed to be a secret)."
I said SCIENTIFIC theory :)
A literal reading of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a creator. The only thing evolution threatens is your pride.
For thousands of years Christians and Jews took the rising and setting of the sun literally. In this era that seems comical. No one would take it literally.
What you are having trouble with is distinguishing between history and parable.
"A literal reading of Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a creator. The only thing evolution threatens is your pride. "
Really, how literally do you want to go into what Genesis actually says? My pride????
"For thousands of years Christians and Jews took the rising and setting of the sun literally. In this era that seems comical. No one would take it literally. "
I think some followed the moon as well.
"What you are having trouble with is distinguishing between history and parable."
?????
"Such as?????
See below.
"Evolution is not a theory, it is an observable fact.
"Really??? Prove it. Just because you state it does not make it so. So back it up.
Evolution is the variation of allele frequencies within a population. This is observed with every birth. Any good biology text will affirm this.
"The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is our explanation of how evolution works.
"Your "explanation" unless backed by irrefutable fact, is your accepted explanation ie. theory.
Whether or not you accept the ToE, your definition and conflation of 'law' and 'theory' is simply wrong.
"Theories do not graduate to laws. A theory is a group of unfalsified hypotheses.
"I see assumptions but NO FACTS
You see assumptions? Where? If you doubt my definition that a theory is made up of a number of hypotheses, look up the word 'hypothesis'. A theory is the collection of hypotheses that survive testing and falsifying.
"Laws are descriptions of consistent phenomena. Theories have no need to be duplicated, the tests run to falsify (or verify, depending on your viewpoint) the hypotheses a theory is made of have to be repeatable.
"WHAT?????
"Your trying to equate theory with law. Theory is the root of thesis
No, you're mistaking a theory for a law. You might want to get your definitions straight before going on.
Wikipedia definition of Theory
There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.
A theory is different from a theorem. The former is a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms. The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed.
Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.
"This is the correct definition, not that silly common usage thing you posted.
"My, such pomposity. Are you French? Or Al Gore or John Kerry?
There are a number of definitions for the word 'theory', one or more used in the sciences and one used in common language. You specifically chose the common usage definition, in an attempt to belittle the ToE, because it represents a strawman version of the scientific definition. The ToE is a result of a number of scientific fields, all of which use the scientific definition of the word.
"Are you sure you're not a Loki Troll?
"Your question implies that someone who doesn't agree with your presuppositions , must just be trying to goad you into outraged responses. I'm not trying to goad you into outraged responses. I thoroughly disagree with the theory of evolution, as obviously many others on this thread do. With the pomposity you've exhibited, you're the one who seems to be trying to instigate others.
No, I question you motives because of the egregious definitional mistakes you've made. If you can not get your definitions correct, the probability you have any correct information about science is extremely low, IMHO.
If you have any specific problems with the ToE, put them forward and we'll discuss it. Playing semantic games gets us nowhere.
Please explain your position of least relavent [sic].
If I theorize that you had grits and toast for breakfast yesterday, that's a 'conjecture based on limited information or knowledge'.
On the other hand, the fact of evolution is one of the deeply studied and widely confirmed phenomena in the realm of empirical science. Tens of thousands of researchers are involved in extending our understanding of its workings, and have been for 150 years. Hence, were you to say that the theory of evolution is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture", you would be misusing the term 'theory' in an especially egregious way.
I theorize that you wouldn't want to do that.
Science observes what is observable. It doesn't affirm or deny the supernatural -- that's outside its scope.
I know that my dog will die if I don't feed it. I do not have to know who created it, or whether or not it has a consciousness or a soul, to back up the vailidity of this observation.
I do not believe that I, personally, require a creation myth, nor am I interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor even on the point.
Darwin was a near contemporary of Diderot. (Or Rousseau.)
Just a bunch of guys who dreamed of being the new Isaac Newton but without all that hard thinking.
No measurement, no science. Numbers, not arm waving.
Darwin was a near contemporary of Diderot. (Or Rousseau.)
The floruit of the two Frenchmen was about 100 years before that of Darwin:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this:
Just a bunch of guys who dreamed of being the new Isaac Newton but without all that hard thinking.No measurement, no science. Numbers, not arm waving.
I wouldn't lump Darwin in with Diderot and Rousseau (the Frenchmen were literati, Darwin was a scientist). Also, not every subject is amenable to mathematization to the extent that, say, physics has been.
Scientific analysis requires one to be objective, yes, but not inhuman.
The notion that it does is just ludicrous.
Go for it ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.