ACLU Vs Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Catholic2003:
The important thing is that a scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested, and as those predictions are independently and repeatedly tested and verified, that scientific theory becomes more and more accepted by the scientific community.

There is no “magic point” at which a theory becomes a law, and no longer subject to falsification. Witness the upheaval of Newtonian physics (including Newton’s Laws of Motion and Law of Gravity) by Einstein’s special and general relativity.

In teaching science, the theory with the most supporting evidence at the time is the one that should be taught.
Click to expand...
The mechanism of evolution has not been proven, sorry.
 
40.png
gilliam:
No, evolution is a scientific theory, it must be proven scientifically to become a law. Evidence or not, the scientific method requires those who want us to believe it is true to scientifically prove it is true, that has not happened.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t.
It is not a requirement of anyone else to prove it is wrong.

Unless those who belive in evolution think of it as a religious belief now, and not scientific fact.
Click to expand...
How do you prove a scientific theory? Should we teach relativity?

Saying that it is wrong because you don’t believe it doesn’t make the theory invalid.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
gilliam:
Well, anyone can pose a theory. (e.g., I can say you are green. It is a theory.) Once it has been independently proven or repeated, it is a law. If you throw out the idea that there is any difference between a theory and a law, you throw out the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Do you have a clue what a scientific theory is? Based on this post, you don’t.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
No it doesn’t.

How do you prove a scientific theory? Should we teach relativity?

Saying that it is wrong because you don’t believe it doesn’t make the theory invalid.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
teach relativity as a theory until it is proven as a law.

Not sure why people want to teach Evolution like it is a law. Do people think it will somehow undermind religion and have it in for religion? Sure seems like it to me.

Evolution is NOT dogma. cool down people.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Do you have a clue what a scientific theory is? Based on this post, you don’t.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Sure do: Evolution is a theory and not a Law.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
How do you prove a scientific theory? Please enlighten us.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
a hypothesis is generated about how some process of nature works. On the basis of this hypothesis, an experiment is logically deduced that will result in a set of particular observations that should occur, under particular conditions, if the hypothesis true. If those particular observations do not occur, then we are faced with several possibilities: our hypothesis needs to be revised, the experiment was carried out incorrectly, or the analysis of the results from that experiment was in error.

Saying someone is green would fit this, in that showing they are not, in fact green, would prove it wrong. A scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

saying someone is green would fit into this model. showing they are, in fact, not green, would refute it.
 
40.png
gilliam:
a hypothesis is generated about how some process of nature works. On the basis of this hypothesis, an experiment is logically deduced that will result in a set of particular observations that should occur, under particular conditions, if the hypothesis true. If those particular observations do not occur, then we are faced with several possibilities: our hypothesis needs to be revised, the experiment was carried out incorrectly, or the analysis of the results from that experiment was in error.

Saying someone is green would fit this, in that showing they are not, in fact green, would prove it wrong. A scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

saying someone is green would fit into this model. showing they are, in fact, not green, would refute it.
Click to expand...
OK, you have shown that you know how to dis-prove a theory. That’s not what I asked. How do you PROVE a theory?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
gilliam:
Sure do: Evolution is a theory and not a Law.
Click to expand...
So, please explain the difference between a scientific theory and and scientific law.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
So, please explain the difference between a scientific theory and and scientific law.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Scientific laws are the evidence used to support a conclusion and explain how nature works. Scientific hypotheses and theories are our best attempts at explaining the behavior of the world, in ways that can be tested by further experiment. The facts (the scientific laws) must convince us that our theory is a good explanation for what happened. So far that has not happened with Evolution since a number of alternative explinations can explain what is happening (e.g., Intellegentl Design).

take care, Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Yes… [someone has witnessed an organism evolve into a higher being…]
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to this research or any other information on it? I’ve never heard of it.

Thanks.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Here are a couple of links:

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Both have references to the research.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Unless I missed it (please quote it if I did), not only didn’t I see an evolution into a ‘higher being’ here, I didn’t even a change in species (unless you completely redefine the meaning of the word species). It would be very disengenuous to say this shows anything about evolution.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Not only didn’t I see an evolution into a ‘higher being’ here, I didn’t even a change in species (unless you completely redefine the meaning of the word species). It would be very disengenuous to say this shows anything about evolution.
Click to expand...
Then you are using a different definition of species than scientists use.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Then you are using a different definition of species than scientists use.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
give me the quote where they are moving between species
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Please read the links I gave. It is in there.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I did and I didn’t see it. I did see where someone was trying to change the definition of species, but I don’t think that is what you meant. Please give a quote that shows a change in species caused by selection. (even though that is not proof of evolution into a ‘higher being’ you would have to prove the species is a ‘higher being’, which I don’t think you can do). Anyway, show the evolutionary change between species that is caused by selection.
 
From the Amazon.com page on the Behe book:
Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, presents here a scientific argument for the existence of God. Examining the evolutionary theory of the origins of life, he can go part of the way with Darwin–he accepts the idea that species have been differentiated by the mechanism of natural selection from a common ancestor. But he thinks that the essential randomness of this process can explain evolutionary development only at the macro level, not at the micro level of his expertise. Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is “irreducibly complex.” This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of “intelligent design.”
Click to expand...
So it seems as though Behe accepts universal common descent.

I ask again: What does everyone think about teaching universal common descent as a “law”, while acknowledging that there are many things remaining to be discovered as regards the mechanism of evolution, and that random mutation coupled with “survival of the fittest” is just a theory at the present time?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
From the Amazon.com page on the Behe book:

So it seems as though Behe accepts universal common descent
I ask again: What does everyone think about teaching universal common descent as a “law”,

.
Click to expand...
I don’t know enough about the subject to comment about this.
while acknowledging that there are many things remaining to be discovered as regards the mechanism of evolution, and that random mutation coupled with “survival of the fittest” is just a theory at the present time?
Click to expand...
Yes, a lot needs to yet be discovered. Intellegent design is a definate possibility and may be a mechanism at play here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top