Re-Theory of Evolution

Ahem! You left out the part where the course was actually on Global Change and the "three lecture series" was just that. Three lectures of a semester long class entitled Global Change 1: Physical processes. Here is the intro page for the class:

quote:

---

Every day, millions of human and natural activities are altering the planet on which we live. Over the past century, through our ever-increasing population and mastery of technology, we have been changing the global environment at a pace unknown to natural history.

​

The University of Michigan's Global Change Program offers an interdisciplinary three semester introductory course sequence that investigates the causes and potential impacts of global change using a combination of traditional lecture-based and modern web-based teaching methodologies. The courses can be taken alone or in conjunction with companion courses toward completion of the Global Change Minor.

​

This semester course deals with issues relating to the physical, chemical and biological cycles contributing to Global Change. Students apply learned knowledge by using discussions and Stella systems modeling software to investigate the dynamics of natural systems.

---

The reason why they worded the paragraph you quoted the way they did was to tie biological evolution in to the theme of global change.Was this supposed to prove something? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of URL in quote box, to restore page width to normal.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

No. It seems that Darwin added some personal opinion to the conclusion of his book.Funny how you ignore all of the evidence that Darwin provided in his works (and that the thousands upon thousands of scientists have provided since), but you latch on to one little bit of personal opinion that has absolutely no evidence attached to it as if it proves something other than that Darwin had an opinion.Darwin's (or anyone else's) views on how the original form(s) of life came to be are not a part of the ToE. They were not a part of it 150 years ago and they are not a part of it now.Even if/when we discover just how life started, the only relevance it would have for the ToE is that first organism(s) and it's structures and the evolution of it's descendants. Period. How it got there has zero relevance to the ToE. Period.Maybe you guys are so confused because of the name of the book The Origin of Species? The title is not referencing in any way, shape or form the origin of the first life, but how new species originate(d).I propose that we should follow your lead and hold a seance to get permission from Darwin to change the name of his book so we won't confuse anybody anymore.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

OK now that I have responded to the last couple of posts by you I have to get this out of my system.I think it is a bit rich that creationists have spent years, all by themselves, trying to conflate abiogenesis with evolution in order to make it seem like one has to be an atheist to accept it and equivocating on the terminology used in science in order to confuse others and now one of their ranks comes along and tries to blame scientists for causing all the confusion by naming a theory.ICANT, the only reason people get confused about what evolution is when others are speaking about evolution is because they don't actually know what evolution is. They think it means everything from the Big Bang up until now (amongst many other strawmen) because of the creationist literature out there that tells them it is such. Not because of what scientists call the theory.Now, my opinion (and it is just my opinion) is that you guys lump it all together in your minds, but you only really attack the biological evolution part of it (at least in the schools and the most vociferously on message boards such as this) because it is what makes the Christian public most uncomfortable. Many, if not most, of them can live with an old Earth and even an old universe as part of their God's creation, but they cannot live with not being specially created in their God's image as the Bible says. The beginning of Genesis can be interpreted as billions of years (or not, depending), but the special creation of Adam and Eve makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and special inside so the idea of the evolution of man from "lower" forms of life makes you all kinds of queasy and so it is much easier to attack.And if you get the Christian public to fall in line against the science behind evolution it is easier to get them to fall in line against the science behind the Big Bang and cosmology, the science behind geology, the science behind everything which contradicts the Bible.If you confuse the issue by equivocating terms, telling half-truths (or outright lies) and creating ridiculous strawmen, then it is easier to get people to believe what you want them to believe.Get over it. When speaking about the Evolution vs. Creation debate, evolution refers to biological evolution as evidenced in the Theory of Evolution. It will prefaced with something else (like "stellar" or "chemical") or be used in a sentence with a defining clause (like "of nation-states" or "of trade unions") if that is what the discussion is about.If you actually knew what the Theory of Evolution was all about, then you wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame the scientists for your own confusion.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Jaderis No, ICANT, it was because they were reminding the students that "evolution is a unifying theme of this course and the concept of evolution is relevant to many of our topics." The fact that they went on to state that "the word 'evolution' does not apply only to biological evolution" does not support your case as no one here has asserted that the word "evolution" only applies to biological evolution in all cases. Just in the case of speaking about biological evolution, like on this debate forum where "evolution" can be correctly assumed to mean biological evolution unless otherwise specified. The class was part of a program on global change and lecturing about how things (biological and otherwise) evolve helps students understand the complexities involved in dynamic systems. Then you are wrong. Can you please show where in this UMich program they used the phrase "theory of evolution" to mean anything other than the "Theory of Evolution" as it is used by biologists? Or any other "higher education" institution? Or anywhere?You might find someone saying something like "there are many theories about the evolution of the Basque language" or "the generally accepted theory on the evolution of our solar system is..." but you will hard pressed to find anyone using the phrase "theory of evolution" to mean anything other than the "Theory of Evolution" as it pertains to biology. I didn't say anything of the sort. You are the one who went grasping at straws and tried to bend the words to mean something that they didn't mean.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Again, that was an opinion offered by Darwin. He provided no evidence for how the first lifeforms came to exist and therefore his opinion is not a part of the ToE or any other scientific theory, as of yet. And for the millionth time, how the first life forms came to be has absolutely NO bearing on the subsequent evolution of their descendants. Science is not uncomfortable with that which is not known. That's religion's department. We "evolutionists" accept that there are currently many unknowns, but that as time goes by and our understanding and technology develop those unknowns will become less and less. We don't just make stuff up to fill in the gaps in our knowledge in order to make ourselves feel better. Again, that is religion's department.One of these unknowns is how the first biological life came into existence, but we are excited to find out. No matter what we discover, it will still have absolutely NO bearing on the evolution of life since then.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea