Posted on 11/21/2012 12:48:35 PM PST by unlearner
“If one defines gravity as the theory that the universe self assembled over billions of years without God’s input then many will deny that gravity is a fact. Doesn’t change that gravity is a fact.”
You are no better than talk origins which wants to play the same semantical word games to obscure the truth from logical debate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
A scientific theory would never specifically exclude God. The existence of God is a fact. A theory cannot speculate about the existence of God. His existence is not falsifiable since you can never prove that something does not exist. So His existence has to be an observable fact or not. You could say the exact same thing about Abraham Lincoln. Science would never speculate whether he existed. Forensic science could possibly help determine a cause of death to identify who killed Abraham Lincoln. His existence will always be part of the data, not part of the theoretical construct to explain the data. Evolution proponents are always conflating facts/data with theory/hypothesis. People witnessed Abraham Lincoln being assassinated. This not a scientific fact (i.e. directly observable), but a historical fact. Based on a reasonable assumption that what people observed then is true and correct, it is possible to make scientific inquiry.
Gravity is both a law and a fact because it is a phenomenon which can be easily, directly observed and can be described by easily understandable algorithms. If you were to form a Theory of Everything (which is essentially what evolution proponents are doing with their unfalsifiable theory) and call that theory The Theory of Gravitation, and then proceed to argue that gravity is a fact and a theory, you would have the same semantical argument being made here.
The point of the debate is to remove obscurity, not hide behind it. I already pointed out that evolution has many meanings, like Obama’s position on gay marriage having evolved. You might say it is a fact that a specific species of cats “evolved” from another species of cats if you can support that statement with direct observation without extrapolating data. But this would mean that a specific instance of evolving is a fact, and Evolution remains a theory which encompasses this and other facts. Otherwise it is bait-and-switch.
When creationists argue against evolution, it is against the parts of evolutionary theory that contradict the Bible. These include man having common descent with animals and the earth being billions of years old. We do not argue against adaptation, hereditary positive mutations being preserved by natural selection, or even speciation when understood in context.
You may reasonably argue that Evolution is a well-supported theory, but in a debate over Evolution vs. Creation it is disingenuous to call Evolution a fact. It’s not... not in the sense being implied in such a debate.
Clarification: a historical fact is a scientific fact at the time it occurs if it is repeatable. Since we cannot call Lincoln’s assassination repeatable, it is a historical fact and not a scientific fact.
Adaptation is a fact best explained through natural selection of genetic variation. Does it make it all better for you if I don’t use the E-word?
I agree with that statement. It is precise, accurate and scientific. And, yes, the word matters. Doing so avoids the politicization of science which will serve both science and society better. Consider the Scopes trial definition of evolution. The court said as follows:
“Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type. This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It was in that sense that evolution was used in this act. It is in this sense that the word will be used in this opinion, unless the context otherwise indicates. It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the act before us was intended to apply, and much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case.”
Scientists have had entire careers studying evolution that has nothing to do with human evolution, common descent of species or long ages of the Earth. They need not change their correct use of language because nonscientists have loaded up the word with superfluous connotations.
Evolution in all contexts means change.
Biological evolution simply means change (in DNA) in populations. That is an easily observable fact that is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
Not all change in the DNA of a population is adaptive. But all change in the DNA of a population is, by definition, evolution. Adaptation implies the change is a useful change. Evolution just means it changed.
“Scientists have had entire careers studying evolution that has nothing to do with human evolution, common descent of species or long ages of the Earth. They need not change their correct use of language because nonscientists have loaded up the word with superfluous connotations.”
When such scientists step into the public debate they need to understand the connotations of the word. And the connotations of common descent of species or long ages of the Earth were imbued by so-called scientists (the scorners of God and creation in Darwin’s day) since the term was applied to Darwin’s theory from day one.
“Evolution in all contexts means change.”
Again, I have pointed out since the beginning of the discussion that evolution means different things in different contexts. The article I posted addresses mockers of conservatives who believe in a literal creation and a young earth. They mock these things citing that “evolution is a fact”. In that context it is nonsense. The specific observations you mentioned in no way contradict or oppose the beliefs of creationists. This is what is known as playing loose with the facts. If evolutionists did not do this, there would be little to debate.
There are elements of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the modern versions of it that contradict what the Bible teaches about the origin of man and the age of the universe. Creationists want an honest debate. We do not want to force our views on others, and we do not want other views forced on us. The elements of Evolution that contradict the Bible are speculative, not facts. Therefore it is a false accusation against creationists to say we deny the facts of science.
This semantic word game has been going on for many years, and you may be naive enough to believe it is coincidental rather than part of an intentional, well-thought out plan to attack and destroy Christian beliefs in our culture. So I am not accusing you of intentional deception. But Evolution has been politicized and used as such a tool by those who want God removed from the public square primarily because they hate the God of the Bible because He condemns their behavior as evil. That is what the real debate is about. Creationists are generally supportive of scientific and technological progress. Our opponents generally portray us in a different light.
How about stepping back and looking at a more fundamental question than Science: The subject of 8th Grade Math, about which Obama is a TOTAL MORON.
As was evidenced on the Letterman show, whether the US Debt increased by $1 trillion or $7 trillion is pretty much the same thing to President Zero. Add to that, that he sent a “budget” to Congress which NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT SENATOR would vote for.
But we can’t criticize the Great One (1) because that would be racist.
Biological evolution simply means change in living things. Change in living things is a fact - a fact that is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
Theories explain and predict facts. Biological evolution is not a theory - the theory that explains the fact of biological evolution is natural selection of genetic variation.
Sorry but you don't get to control the language.
If Creationists are fixated upon the idea that to accept biological evolution is to deny God - then no wonder they cry and whine when it is pointed out that biological evolution is a fact.
As I pointed out to you - if they chose to attack with equal vigor the theory of gravity by defining it as being a theory that the Universe self assembled over billions of years without God - then no doubt we would have people denying that gravity (as they understand it) is a fact. The defect is in their understanding - not in the fact of gravity or the theories that explain it.
Creationists apparently believe in evolution with a power and speed far beyond that ever proposed by evolutionary biologists - when they need all extant species to derive from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years. Speciation - within undefined kinds - also acceptable - thus the (semi) common descent of (some) species. But don't you DARE call it evolution!
The Pope apparently doesn't think the teachings of the Bible contradict biological evolution of man or the long ages of the Earth (separate things despite your constant attempts to conflate them). Do you think the Pope doesn't understand what the Bible teaches? Or do you accept that Christians (such as myself) have different opinions about what it is actually saying?
Excellent point.
“Biological evolution is not a theory - the theory that explains the fact of biological evolution is natural selection of genetic variation. Sorry but you don’t get to control the language.”
Now you are just getting ludicrous. Is this the new approach to the evolution debate? to claim Evolution never really was a theory? and that it is creationists who have tried to make it out to just be a theory?
I am not attempting to control the language. I am making sure apples are apples and oranges are oranges. This requires putting a stop to word games that some evolution proponents hide behind. This especially includes the Talk Origins group of scientism-ists.
And you’ve got it backward: natural selection and genetic variation are observable facts. They are not the theories. They are the data. At the time Darwin coined the term “natural selection” it might have been accurate to call it a hypothesis or theory. Today it is not correct with any degree of precision. For a time it could have been considered a well-supported theory; but in time it has come to be fairly well observed which moves it over to the factual category. Evolution is a theory, so-called, that is supposed to explain (among other things) the origin of species based on these observations.
Darwin started with natural selection and morphological variation which was later replaced by genetics as a more precise measure of inheritable variation. But, though the theory evolved, it never evolved into a fact. While speciation is well-supported if not observed, popular aspects of evolutionary theory are not well-supported such as common descent and the general trajectory of life forms becoming more sophisticated and complex over time. It contains no mechanism to explain why time works for evolutionary progress rather than an increasing likelihood of the deterioration of populations and their eventual extinction. Why does time work for evolutionary progress for living things in general but against the survival of individual living things (which also contain populations of living cells)? Why hasn’t massive amounts of apparent time wiped out life more frequently than it some how (without explanation) came into existence (i.e. biogenesis)?
If you want to talk Esperanto in the ivory towers of science, it is fine by me. But in a public forum such as this, in a court of law such as the Scopes trial I cited, in newspaper editorials and schools, the definition of terms becomes critical to the debate. Words have meanings. Words have consequences. There are massive volumes of laws, rules and regulations that hinge on defining evolution correctly as people understand it.
I’m not conceding an argument because the Talk Origins crowd wants to change the rules during the debate. You can join them on the dark side if you wish. But I’m not budging.
Most of these evolution proponents have an agenda where they feel the need to prove God is not necessary. They prefer a universe with no meaning or purpose. Yet science rests upon the a priori assumption that the universe and nature are intrinsically comprehensible. Life is meaningful. Interestingly our world not only contains many things to support God’s existence, it appears He designed it so we have the possibility to learn about the Universe; because if things were slightly different, much of scientific inquiry would be impossible.
Could you be more wrong? One can infer bit not observe natural selection. One CAN observe the change in DNA of populations and that is by definition, is evolution.
Evolution, ie change, is the observed fact. The theory of natural selection helps to explain and predict this fact.
Natural selection of genetic variation is a theory of evolution. Lamark also had a theory of evolution. Both theories attempted to explain the fact that living populations change.
One theory successfully explained and predicted the observed fact of change in living things, and the other did not. That is why Darwin's theory of natural selection (we now know, as he did not, that what is being selected is DNA variations) is useful to science and Lamarkian evolution is not.
Creationism, of course, is of no use, it leads nowhere and to nothing as far as ANY practical applications.
Science is of use. Creationism is useless.
Science isn't atheism. Do you think the Pope is trying to prove that God is not necessary when he says there is much ‘proof’ of biological evolution?
“Could you be more wrong? One can infer bit [sic] not observe natural selection.”
Could you? Berkeley:
“In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26
“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
Does an observable phenomena contain a “central idea”? Is the central idea of a common ancestor an observable fact?
If you won’t here it from me, will you here it from a highly credible source that actually teaches evolutionary theory?
I don’t agree with their confidence in common descent, but at least the pages I cite here agree as to the terminology of the debate.
Bird beaks.
Did we SEE natural selection leading to the death of every bird that didn't have the optimum shaped beak? No.
They are talking about observing the RESULTS of natural selection - i.e. evolutionary change in beak morphology.
Common ancestry IS a central idea of biological evolution - but it itself is not biological evolution.
Not all biological evolution leads to speciation - and thus two different species that share a common ancestor.
Now you do accept the common ancestry of SOME species with each other, do you not? And on a time-frame much swifter from anything proposed by evolutionary biology? Otherwise how did all extant species fit on a boat within the time-frame of human existence?
If so then you accept “adaptation” and “speciation” and SOME “common descent” - and with a speed far beyond anything observed in nature. Now what theory are you going to use to describe HOW that adaptation, speciation and the resulting common descent of some species came about?
Darwin's theory of evolution (the observation) through the action of natural selection of genetic variation (the theoretical mechanism)?
The terminology of the debate in an INTRODUCTORY treatment also says this, which you apparently overlooked.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
“Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.”
Descent with modification is an inescapable FACT, due to the inability of DNA to be replicated with 100% fidelity or to remain free from changes.
Once again for those of you in Rio Linda - evolution is descent with modification and that is a fact. The theory of natural selection helps to explain and predict this fact.
As I pointed out to begin with, I do not subscribe to Berkeley’s pro-evolution, leftist, and anti-Christian dogmas. I merely cited what they said about evolution being a theory. Just because they join you and the talk origins crowd by saying evolution is a theory AND a fact, does not change the fact that such comments are intentionally misleading and basically dishonest in a debate about evolution and creation.
It was only recently that this tactic was introduced as a way to confuse and trick the uninformed. But you have carried it further by denying evolution is a theory. Now it is only a fact and what, a law?
Even natural selection, though observed (which amazingly you want to deny while making pro-evolution arguments), is not a law. Darwin coined the term to describe changes that were not the result of artificial selection (which by your logic would conclusively prove Intelligent Design or at least guided evolution to be true since this is definitely an observable activity). So descent with modification sometimes occurs randomly, but sometimes it occurs by intelligent intervention through breeding. So by your and Berkeley’s definition of evolution (”descent with modification”), some evolution is necessarily the product of intelligent design (in this case, planned selective breeding with the intent to produce specific traits and having a successful outcome). Breeders intentionally and intelligently caused some of what you define as evolution.
See I can play word games too. I think a press release needs to be issued that Berkeley agrees that intelligent design is well supported by scientific observation. Would you be OK with that? That is 100% equivalent to calling evolution a fact in this debate.
“Descent with modification is an inescapable FACT”.
In the same way intelligent design is a fact. Since Pasteur debunked spontaneous generation, biogenesis is an accepted law of science which states living things only arise from other living things. It has been two and a half years since man has begun creating synthetic life. Are you prepared to publicly embrace that the law of biogenesis has now been replaced by the law of intelligent design abiogenesis since the only observable instance of life arising from nonliving matter did so through intelligent intervention?
Your arguments would be more respectable if you man-up and just admit the error I think you already know you made rather than double down or try to change the subject. Evolution, as defined in the creation vs. evolution debate, is a theory. Even if you are determined to also describe the evolutionary processes as facts, all the world of evolution proponents acknowledge it to be a theory.
“Now you do accept the common ancestry of SOME species with each other, do you not?”
Yes. I accept that speciation occurs. Thus some species share a common ancestor. I reject the unsupported conjecture “of biological evolution... that ALL life on Earth shares a common ancestor” as per the webpage we both cited. There is simply no evidence to back up this claim. None. It is wishful thinking less substantiated than tree fairies and unicorns. Even if unguided abiogenesis occurred, it might have easily generated many types of simple life forms which interacted to form and share genetic information that gave rise to a multitude of species. It is also possible that some species today represent the merging of more than one species. So I will clarify my earlier remark. I reject the concept of a UNIVERSAL common ancestor, something which is apparently a sacrosanct tenet of the so-called theory of evolution by its proponents.
“Did we SEE natural selection leading to the death of every bird that didn’t have the optimum shaped beak?”
The essential element of genetic variation is observable. That is, it is measurable, quantifiable, and detectable, within populations. Causality is even established. We know why the change occurred. We know how this change resulted in natural selection in the way Darwin intended the term to mean. Some traits can be produced by breeding. Some traits become more defined or otherwise change or develop without any human intervention to breed those traits. It is natural selection. Yes, it is a mechanism for evolution. It is also a prediction of a type of fact which has been verified at least in some instances such as this by observation.
“If so then you accept ‘adaptation’ and ‘speciation’ and SOME ‘common descent’ - and with a speed far beyond anything observed in nature.”
If speciation has ever been directly observed it would the combination of historical records of observation with more recent records of observation. Thus any observable rather than inferred instance of speciation would necessarily have happened very quickly. But the necessary rapid genetic variation is perhaps “observed” indirectly if we makes some causal assumptions.
In large populations variations happen more frequently and selective pressure is drastically reduced. So as the earth has filled with more living things the rate of change has not only increased but done so exponentially. Most significant genetic variation can be measured by comparing variation within large populations to determine how much change has occurred over a certain amount of time (assuming the generational time space is relatively constant). So far, most such genetic variation can be shown to be almost entirely to have occurred within a number of generations that represent around five thousand years. This is coincidentally very close to the time frame of the deluge, aka Noah’s flood.
It is not my intention to be insulting. I love a good debate. Apathy is the enemy of truth. Whether we reach an agreement or an impasse I think you are much more likely to find TRUTH than those who treat this issue as uninteresting.
Evolution, defined as descent with modification, is a fact. The theory that best explains and predicts this observation is natural selection of genetic variation. Just as gravitation is an observed fact, and the theory of universal attraction of mass is a good explanation for that observed fact.
Natural selection is a theory. Descent with modification is a fact. Universal attraction of mass is a theory. Gravitation is a fact.
I am amazed that you accept adaptation of biological organisms (presumably through natural selection of genetic variation) as a fact, but not evolution.
Adaptation implies that the change was useful, while there are entire subject fields of evolution that study non-adaptive evolution - i.e. change in the DNA of a population that confers no adaptive advantage. Much of this is associated with the evidence for common descent that you are ignorant of and short sightedly deny the existence of.
Theories help to explain and predict facts.
When you understand this you may gain a basic understanding of the scientific subjects under discussion, until then you must unlearn what you think you know - but isn't so.
“So now Berkley [sic] isn’t a reputable source? Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.”
I made it exceedingly clear why Berkeley was cited. They are considered an authority on evolution by those who subscribe to the whole idea hook, line and sinker. This would be much like an atheist citing a Bible passage to someone who accepts the authority of the Bible. You said evolution is NOT a theory. Berkeley calls it a theory.
Your statement that evolution is not a theory contradicts what Berkeley says. Simple logic dictates that either you are wrong or Berkeley is. It is you who cannot have it both ways.
I am not trying to have it both ways. I accept that Berkeley is an authority on Evolution, or the systematic nomenclature used to describe biological organisms and systems, which also includes the modern myth of universal common descent with no basis in reality. They are among the keepers of the myth and providers of the sacrament of liberal education.
This would not be a point of debate if you were saying you do not believe evolution is true. If you were saying it does not rise to the level of a theory from being merely conjecture I would not argue the point. But you are advancing it as more than a theory.
Do you regard Berkeley as an authority? Do you subscribe to all they teach there? How about left-wing diatribes against the evil of free markets?
“Descent with modification is a fact. Universal attraction of mass is a theory. Gravitation is a fact.”
There are facts / observations as well as theories and laws about gravity. Newton developed a theory of gravitation and also a law of universal gravitation. It is not unreasonable to describe gravitation as a scientific fact since there is a universal law describing gravitation based on empirical evidence. But it is like the anthropomorphism of referring to the “purpose” of an adaptation, unless you believe in a literal, divinely guided evolution. No one sees, i.e. observes “gravitation”. We observe the effects of gravitation. The law of gravitation is the generalization of the observations, i.e. the facts. If you could support the claim that all life always evolves then I suppose you could make this into some sort of law. It would have only descriptive power as opposed to the explanatory power of the law of gravitation; so even if it were possible to generalize these observations into a “law” and thus a “scientific fact”, it would really be nothing more than distinguishing between living chemical processes as opposed to non-living chemical processes. It would be another tautology: living things live. Everything changes, not just living things. Such a law, if it could be defined as such, would not be very useful. Since Evolution is not directly observable (unless you have figured out time travel), it cannot be generalized in such a way to make it a law or scientific fact. The most it can ever be is a theory. So sure, evolving is a fact. Things evolve all the time. That does not make Evolution (with universal common descent) a scientific fact. And to call it a fact without this clarification is being intentionally misleading.
So the term “scientific fact” could have multiple meanings and is less rigorous and precise as terms more specific to scientific inquiry such as law, theory, observation, etc. With the way you are using the term “fact”, I could just as reasonably describe the resurrection of Christ as a scientific fact. Calling it a historical fact would be more precise and accurate, but His being seen by many witnesses to both die and come back from the grave makes the event an observation. There is empirical evidence for Christ’s life, death and resurrection. There is no empirical evidence for universal common descent though the idea is embraced without reservation by the Berkeley types.
“I am amazed that you accept adaptation of biological organisms (presumably through natural selection of genetic variation) as a fact, but not evolution.”
As I said before, I accept the “fact of evolution” or rather facts of it. I accept that Obama has evolved his position on gay marriage, or at least he claims that he changed rather than hid his true views until a more convenient time to reveal them. I reject Evolution as a theory which is described by authorities on the subject to include universal common descent, among other errors. I reject it as a theory. I reject it as a fact.
“Adaptation implies that the change was useful, while there are entire subject fields of evolution that study non-adaptive evolution - i.e. change in the DNA of a population that confers no adaptive advantage.”
This is where Evolution with a big E gets interesting. What does “useful” mean? We know what it means in an obvious sense, but what about in the context of science. Useful for what? In general, they are useful for survival. But that is the very definition of tautology.
I accept that adaptive change happens and non-adaptive change happens. Non-adaptive change happens because God likes variety. Adaptive change happens because He likes functionality. Within the context of science it is a distinction without a difference. Surviving things survive. Others die off.
It is an attempt to ascribe meaning where it does not exist. It has no explanatory power, merely descriptive. Sure, it has a use for organizing information. But to try to draw a conclusion of universal common descent is ridiculous. Adaptive change means adaptive for that population. An adaptation of one population could result in the extinction of another population. Where is the mechanism to explain why this possibility does not lead to the extinction of all life generally over time or at least the reduction of all life to simpler, less complex, less sophisticated life forms. Adaptation does not explain that. The fact that life on this planet is very complex and sophisticated in spite of supposedly billions of years which should work against this at least as much as work for it (unless some new mechanism is proposed or has been discovered), makes what we see today just as miraculous as life arising from nonliving things in the first place.
“Theories help to explain and predict facts. When you understand this you may gain a basic understanding of the scientific subjects under discussion...”
What is Evolution then, part of some esoteric mystery religion where the secret that it is not REALLY a theory is not revealed to the un-initiated?
I do get the explanatory and predictive power of a well-supported theory. Because correlation does not imply causation, predicted facts are not superior to the facts used to form a hypothesis. A theory organizes both types of observations to explain why things behave a certain way. Just like evolutionists conflate facts with theories, they also tend to conflate predictive and explanatory powers of a theory (such as Evolution). The so-called “predictions” of Evolution are almost universally of things that have happened in the past. So the theory of Evolution “predicts” the past. Unimpressive. This goes completely against the idea of controlled experimentation. For every accurate “prediction” of Evolution there are 10,000 unexpected, surprising and falsifying discoveries. Where else can you go with 99.99% of your predictions being wrong and still claim your theory is well-supported? I know: the Democrat party.
But until you admit that evolution is a theory by the standard of authoritative proponents of the idea, we really are at an impasse.
Descent with modification is a fact.
This fact is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
There is no such thing as “more than a theory” in science. A theory is better than a mere fact - as it helps to explain and predict facts.
Just another very BASIC thing about science that you are ignorant of. No wonder you want to rely upon, while decrying, a very BASIC treatment of the subject. Ignoring what you find inconvenient while taking as iron clad any clumsy statement (such as ‘seeing’ natural selection by observing the result of natural selection on bird beaks) made for those who need an a very BASIC introduction to the subject.
The theory of natural selection of genetic variation is a theory OF evolution. There were other theories that attempted to explain the FACT of evolution, but they were not successful.
The theory itself is not called evolution (except as useful shorthand - as one might call the theory of universal gravitation attraction - the theory of gravity - when it is a theory OF gravity, to explain the FACT of gravity). The theory explains the OBSERVATION of evolution, it is not the theory OF evolution, it is the theory of evolution through natural selection. Similarly, Newtons theory explains the OBSERVATION of gravity, it is not the theory OF gravity, it is the theory of universal gravitational attraction of mass.
I know that this time will not be the magic time that you follow this line of reasoning, apparently you have far too much invested in your own bias against science and the meaning you have falsely ascribed to words.
I suppose if Newton or Einstein’s theories of gravity were routinely described as a theory (or “the theory of gravity”) whereby the universe self assembled over billions of years without God - you would deny that gravity were a fact and be utterly confused over the difference between “the theory of gravity” and the observation of gravity.
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.