Posted on 10/28/2005 2:36:03 PM PDT by scientificbeliever
Someone ought to try and convince them that Pi = 3, just to see if it can be done. :)
Theory, hypothesis and fact are not steps in the life of a scientific explanation. They are names for specific parts of the scientific method. Facts support hypothesis which are predictions based on a theory.
A theory is a coherent set of descriptions of a group of phenomena. It is an overall description of how things happen.
A hypothesis is a proposition set forth as a way of testing a theory. Generally, such a proposition takes the form that if some set of conditions occur the theory predicts a specific outcome.
A fact is a specific datum. Scientifically, the word "observation" is the correct term for a group of facts gathered as part of testing a hypothesis.
Neither can evolution!!!
Been done (sort of): http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
Creationism is bad science and bad theology, in my opinion. But to say that creationists are "whackjobs" who want to return to the Dark Ages is over the top. It is no better than saying that evolutionists are all atheists who won't be satisfied until we are living in under communism.
> where was I wrong in what you quoted?
You assumed that there was a definite step between "theory" and "fact."
> Very little of what a practicing physician does is affected one way or the other by the theory of evolution.
But a rejection of science leads to bad doctoring. I would be as leery of a surgeon who believed that the moon was made of green cheese as of one who rejected 150 years of biology, chemistry, physics and geology.
> there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
Nope. "macro" evolution is merely the result of accumulated "micro" evolution.
> Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.
Nevertheless, sane people recognize that a theory that *does* explain the past by predicting the future (as both orbital dynamics and evolution do) is a better explanation that jsut throwing up ones hands and saying "well, can't be proven, so we might as well assume any goofball thing at all."
> Creationism has valid science backing
{splutter}
You owe me a keyboard.
Could you be a little more specific? For example, what's "goo"? That's not a scientific term, I believe.
ROTFLOL! TGIF! More scientific: Macroevolution is, I believe a YEC term which refers to the theory that all life on earth began as single-cell organisms and throught millions and billions of years, these single-cell organisms grew into the various forms of life we have today. Microevolution is another term for natural selection.
Please read Variation, information and the created kind by Dr. Carl Wieland.
He states, "All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood. For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we:
Avoid the use of the term ‘microevolution’.
Rethink our use of the whole concept of ‘variation within kind’.
Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic."
"Evolution" is a word which describes the action prediction by "evolutionary theory" It is not a fact but a theory supported by facts. Some of the facts are specific fossils, and some are things like DNA similarities among species. Claiming that evolution is a fact plays into the hands of the anti-evolutionists.
The National Academy of Sciences is "cutting off their nose to spite their face." If they are interested in providing the evidence for evolution of the students then they should allow the use of this information. By failing to provide the information they inhibit the education of the students in the manner they prefer.
> Claiming that evolution is a fact
Perhaps I misspoke. "Evolution happens" *IS* a fact.
Very little of what a practicing physician does is affected one way or the other by the theory of evolution.
I've asked this before without an answer. How can you, Logophile, make such a statement unless you know "...what a practicing physician does?"
I assume, based upon your replies, that you're reasonable and not bombastic, and that you deserve fair and reasonable dialogue.
Again (simple answer will do): How do you know what a practicing physician does and why knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to that activity?
In even simpler parlance: Put Up or Shut UP.
Like the stretch creationists have to make in order to contradict the results of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating?
Like the convoluted ideas they have for the recent formation of the Grand Canyon?
Their ideas about the Channeled Scablands of Washington State?
It is a long and distinguished list, but there is no science there. Rather it is an attempt to validate a narrow reading of the bible in spite of science!
Creationism and ID are not "Young Earth." Nor do either necessarily come from "a narrow reading of the bible." You do your position no favor by misrepresenting that of your opponents.
Nah. There's no requirement you need to provide material to be bastardized by others.
Silly strawman. I want to sit down with that Kansas schoolkid and reassure him.
"Of course your grandfather wasn't a monkey! Your grandfather was Homo heidelbergensis. Your great-great-great-great-grandfather was a monkey."
This is re: NAS withdrawing copyright.
I had the same thoughts as you, thinking what better to do than to hit the challenge head on. I had this same debate here a week ago.---Our conclusions:
Science is under assault.
Scientists do science for a living, not PR.
Although Science's PR is inadequate, it will still reflexively fire back at an assault---albeit poorly.
Science should hire a really good PR firm.
As we with jocularity say, "Hey, it's all showbiz!!!"
Just driving by?
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.