|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
Sorry, I guess I stumbled into the wrong forum, I was just wondering why any opposing theory was ridiculed when evolution seems so ridiculous to me. I'll go away now and not question your accepted line of thought. I guess this is what happened when Sir Karl Popper made the mistake of questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. No wonder he recanted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
My apologies it seems you did have a stab at answering the question:
quote: Oh dear, this is very poor, you mention popper in another post, but clearly you don't understand his work or anything that followed it. Do you actually understand what a "fact" is in science? Would you like me to recommend a basic primmer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual. Obviously, I'm way over my head here and I'll go back to the books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Dear oh dear - you are having a poor day on here. Don't tell us half a story, why don't you tell us why Popper recanted on his viewpoint that evolution was a metaphysical research program?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Good idea! I think the problem is that you are trying to apply a layman's understanding of terms to science where the means are very different. One of the main problems is the use of the word "fact" in general use people use it to mean "something that is true/proven"; in science, we generally use it to describe something that we have observe on such a repeatable basis that it we all generally agree with what what we see*. The other problem is that we never prove anything in science - we disprove anything. It's not that evolution has been proven to be "true" but rather than it has never been disproved. * and I don't mean just with our eyes, it can cover any number of measurement methods. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xevolutionist Member (Idle past 6953 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: |
You're having too much fun with me. I don't know why Popper recanted. Could it be that he was ridiculed and ostracised from the scientific community? Regardless, I just asked a couple of questions and stated my beliefs. Even if you offer panspermia as a solution to the ORIGIN of life, you just move the problem to another location don't you? Forget I asked that question, I can't take any more ridicule. Ow, that hurts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I'm sorry about that - it's just that when you've been at this site for a long time, it's very difficult hearing the same misunderstandings over and over again.
Popper? basically after he made that statement, he looked at evolution in greater details and realised that he had misunderstood it.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If evolution were in fact testable and there actually was evidence of it then it would become a fact. But that's simply untrue. Tested theories with evidence to support them are still theories. Theories are made of facts; theories don't become fact, ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
xevolutionist writes: I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual. The problem is probably more vocabulary than anything else. When scientists use the word "proven" in conversation or even in formal papers, as sometimes happen, they probably mean something different than what you think it means. Scientists mean "well supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific commuity at this point in time" when they say proven. When you say proven you probably have in mind a mathematical proof using equations, or perhaps an experiment proving once and for all forever and ever that something is so. We see this misunderstanding here all the time, and so many of us have grown into the habit of avoiding the problem altogether by saying that theories are never proven, only supported by evidence and accepted by scientists at the current time. That situation may change in light of new evidence or new insights. A theory is tentative and malleable. A theory is intended to be a reflection of the evidence it attempts to explain, and as more and more evidence is gathered the theory is modified to accommodate it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
A theory is tentative and malleable. A theory is intended to be a reflection of the evidence it attempts to explain, and as more and more evidence is gathered the theory is modified to accommodate it. All well and good. However, while discussing tentativeness we should not forget that the degree of tentativeness goes down as more and more evidence is accumlated. After a time the theory becomes so very accepted that the layman's termed like "truth" and "proven" are close enough to the actual view held by the experts in the field. There is a wide range of confidence in various scientific models. Some are held with a very, very high degeree of confidence indeed. the ToE is one of those. We have also neglected to point out to Cosmo that aside from the issues about how evolution happened (the theory part) the fact that it has happened is still there. We each choose to accept somethings as being a 'good enough' bet as being correct. The level of 'good enough' varies with the individual and the particular case. Almost all those who know anything at all about the facts of the matter would say that betting on the ToE is very, very good bet indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
All very true Ned - however I think that the problem (or rather the point) is that many of use feel hedged (?) in terms of what we outline to some of our creationist chums before we get onto slightly more complex takes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
On a related note, it appears an Atlanta, GA judge has ruled against the sticker disclaimer in textbooks (ya know, Cobb County's "evolution is only a threory, not a fact"). He described it as "thinly disguised religion", and said the disclaimer violated the Constitution.
Of course, the carpet-chewing-fundies that make up the school board will no doubt appeal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gengar Inactive Member |
I've been thinking about this a bit. How about calling their bluff? Let's talk about ID. But lets do the one thing these school boards don't seem to want to do and look at in scientifically.
When looking at the history of life on Earth, we have the following facts to account for: (1) Life has changed over time (the 'fact' of evolution).(2) All life works the same way (common biochemistry). (3) Genetic relationships between species generally seem to match the patterns seen in the fossil record (common descent). All evolutionary theory does is look at how life works now (imperfect replication generating variability, high reproduction rates creating selection pressures), and extrapolate over long periods of time/large numbers of generations, and variable conditions. How about ID then? You can think of several different scenarios for intelligent intervention, in increasing order of directness: (a) Creation of the first replicating population.(b) Insertion of new traits into the genome at a particular point or points in time. (c) Manipulating the whole shebang at a quantum level (the only one, incidentally, which formally requires 'God-like' ID). (a) is related not to evolution, but abiogenesis. Also, you can't really test for this except by looking for life on other planets. If they had, say, the same genetic code, we might get suspicious. (c) Is the theist/deist position. God is behind natural processes. Nothing to add scientifically then; all we can do is study these processes and go 'wow' a lot. Which leaves (b), which could potentially have testable consequences. For instance, intelligent intervention need have no respect for species barriers when tinkering; we might therefore expect intelligently inserted sequences to play havoc with the generation of phylogenetic trees. No-one has found anything like that yet, but there's no harm in looking. Oh dear, no-one who claims to be interested in ID 'science' is. Clearly rather than playing around with mathematically dressed up arguments from incredulity, Dembski et al. should reach for their cladistics primers.... There you go kids. This will hopefully set you on the path to concluding that if God exists, he's a scientist. And much smarter than we are. {lots added by edit 'cos' I accidentally pressed the submit button} This message has been edited by gengar, 01-14-2005 02:55 AM This message has been edited by gengar, 01-14-2005 02:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gengar Inactive Member |
How about a sticker for 'Of Pandas and People'?
'An IDea, not a theory.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
How about a sticker for 'Of Pandas and People'? 'An IDea, not a theory.' Hee hee. I like that one! Demand for "equal treatment" indeed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024