Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[meltzerboy2]

I cannot speak to one Jewish view of Genesis or anything else. As you may already know, Jews are notorious for their disagreements among themselves, let alone with non-Jews. Even within the same stream (branch) of Judaism, not all Jews agree, so that within the Orthodox Jewish community, there is some disagreement about the theory of evolution as it relates to the Book of Genesis. A small minority believe in a literal creation and do not support evolution at all; others believe in a literal creation but still support evolution provided G-d triggered the process; still others do not believe in a literal creation of six days; and so on. Then the other streams of Judaism have their own views on the matter, and individual Jews within all these groups have their personal perspectives. Discussion and debate are part of the fabric of Judaism.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I do, but it does not have the same meaning in science. The equivalent in science of the common use of the word “theory” is “hypothesis,” which is an informed opinion.

 

[Uriel1]

Do you really?

Theory 1590s, “conception, mental scheme,” from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theoria “contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, spectacle, things looked at,” from theorein “to consider, speculate, look at,” from theoros “spectator,” from thea “a view”

Scientists don’t define words @meltzerboy2, the dictionary does that

 

[Uriel1]

So why is (Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) taught as a science using public funds?

This quote from @Roguish says it all

 

[meltzerboy2]

The dictionary is a guideline, not an absolute source of knowledge or authority, just as an encyclopedia is. Language itself is constantly in flux in its usage and dictionaries do their best to keep up. A theory is more than a viewpoint or speculation in science. If one is only at the point of speculation, the word used is hypothesis, not theory. The latter can only be formulated after a hypothesis is tested and confirmed. However, as I previously noted, even a theory is subject to revision if new discoveries are made which the theory cannot explain. Change is the nature of science.

 

[Uriel1]

The dictionary is a guideline, not an absolute source of knowledge or authority, just as an encyclopedia is. Language itself is constantly in flux in its usage and dictionaries do their best to keep up. A theory is more than a viewpoint or speculation in science. If one is only at the point of speculation, the word used is hypothesis, not theory. The latter can only be formulated after a hypothesis is tested and confirmed. However, as I previously noted, even a theory is subject to revision if new discoveries are made which the theory cannot explain. Change is the nature of science.

Well, I understand that you might believe that, but

Evolution as fact and not theory[(View source for Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)]​

Other commentators – focusing on the changes in species over generations and in some cases common ancestry – have stressed, in order to emphasize the weight of supporting evidence, that evolution is a fact, arguing that the use of the term “theory” is not useful:

• Richard Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact , not theory."(Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)
• Douglas J. Futuyma writes in Evolutionary Biology (1998), “The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun.”
  (Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)
• Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact." (Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)
• Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, “Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.”(Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)

No, the dictionary is the baseline and “theory” has an etymology, (see above) so that IT IS NOT FACT

 

[meltzerboy2]

Fact has no special priority in science or in life. Even so-called facts from the recent, let alone distant, past can change and have changed. Does this mean they were not facts to begin with? No, what it means is that science is a continual process subject to revision, and this is the beauty of it, in my view.

 

[buffalo]

C’mon, mate. You need to post the link to win a point. You know the rules. Don’t make me find another cartoon with someone picking cherries.

Now there is proof you do not read the papers or links I post. If you had you would have known these two quotes are in the very same paper. Nice…

 

[Techno2000]

Fact has no special priority in science or in life. Even so-called facts from the recent, let alone distant, past can change and have changed. Does this mean they were not facts to begin with? No, what it means is that science is a continual process subject to revision, and this is the beauty of it, in my view.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”-Mark Twain

 

[Bradskii]

Other commentators – focusing on the changes in species over generations and in some cases common ancestry – have stressed, in order to emphasize the weight of supporting evidence, that evolution is a fact, arguing that the use of the term “theory” is not useful:

You’re darn tootin’ it’s not useful when one is discussing science with people who have such a limited understanding of basic scientific terms.

Hey look, Uriel just fell out of the window. Well, gravity will do that and that’s a FACT (an undisputed event). If he survives the fall he might want to know why he didn’t just hover in space looking puzzled like Wile E Coyote. You can then explain the THEORY of gravity to him (an explanation of said fact).

If he insists they are the same thing, we can repeat the experiment and you can throw him out of the window again.

By the way, Uriel, how’s the forum search coming on for those who claim evolution denies God? Any luck yet? People might think that your delay in furnishing any example is an admission that you were wrong in making the claim in the first place. And as tbis is a very important aspect of every discussion on evolution, we really need a response to it.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

C’mon, mate. You need to post the link to win a point. You know the rules. Don’t make me find another cartoon with someone picking cherries.

Now there is proof you do not read the papers or links I post. If you had you would have known these two quotes are in the very same paper. Nice…

If you had read my post you would have seen that you woukd have needed to post the link and not cherry pick. Yes, the same link that you’ve been posting time and time and time again. With the link I can cut and paste comments such as I have been which indicates that the site is in no doubt WHATSOEVER that evolution is a scientific certainty. That in fact, the articles to which you link are based on that.

Hence the hole in your foot and the award of another ‘Buffalo’. Unless you want to start another award scheme and I can give you a ‘Cherry’ every time you take something out of context?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Uriel1]

meltzerboy2:

Fact has no special priority in science or in life. Even so-called facts from the recent, let alone distant, past can change and have changed. Does this mean they were not facts to begin with? No, what it means is that science is a continual process subject to revision, and this is the beauty of it, in my view.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”-Mark Twain

Correct; they think its ok to ignore the etymology of “theory,” “it’s a fact” they say; we believe in abiogenesis (for which there is no evidence, just a failed hypothesis) , and @rossum even said “I made myself”, i.e. he made himself , yet some on here don’t understand that “evolution” is being used to claim "there is no God?

 

[rossum]

Correct; they think its ok to ignore the etymology of “theory,” “it’s a fact”

Your problem is that science uses “theory” with its own specialised meaning. If you fail to understand that specialised meaning then you will miss what is being said. Use a good scientific dictionary.

they say; we believe in abiogenesis ( for which there is no evidence, just a failed hypothesis )

We have evidence for abiogenesis:

• There was no life on earth 5 billion years ago.
• There is life on earth now.
• Therefore: life on earth started sometime in the last 5 billion years.

We are still working on some of the details, but the basic evidence is there.

and @rossum even said “I made myself”, i.e . he made himself

You asked that question in the context of Buddhism, not science. It is an error to take that answer as applying to my views of science. In scientific terms my parents made me.

yet some on here don’t understand that “evolution” is being used to claim "there is no God?

That claim is false as evolution has nothing to do with the existence or not of God. At most, evolution (and geology, astronomy etc.) can show that some interpretations of the Bible are incorrect, like the 6,000 year YEC interpretation. That is nothing to do with the existence or not of God.

Not a good post from you @Uriel1. It had far to many errors.

rossum

 

[meltzerboy2]

The theory of evolution is taught at yeshivas (Jewish schools) and at Catholic universities. Are these institutions denying the existence of G-d? I don’t think so.

 

[Uriel1]

The theory of evolution is taught at yeshivas (Jewish schools) and at Catholic universities. Are these institutions denying the existence of G-d? I don’t think so.

Yes I agree. It is taught as a “theory” of natural science, and the Godly comes in RE which alongside teaches 1 Cor 15: 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

It is some scientists who use Darwin’s TofE to purport that there is no God

 

[mVitus]

It is some scientists who use Darwin’s TofE to purport that there is no God

Emphasis mine.

It’s nice to finally have you acknowledge denial of God isn’t inherent to evolution, but something that some scientists try to do when they move from science to philosophy.

It is taught as a “theory” of natural science,

Technically correct, using the scientific definition of theory and ignoring the scare quotes. (In Catholic grammar school, when evolution came up it wasn’t mentioned as some wild idea, but as a sure bet of what happened. Which does fit it being taught as a theory of biology.)

 

[Uriel1]

[/quote]

It is some scientists who use Darwin’s TofE to purport that there is no God

It’s nice to finally have you acknowledge denial of God isn’t inherent to evolution, but something that some scientists try to do when they move from science to philosophy.

Dawkins wrote, 2005; Humanity’s best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.

 

[PickyPicky]

Dawkins wrote, 2005; Humanity’s best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today

So that’s it? You don’t like Dawkins? You are not alone. Meanwhile, do you agree that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was scientific?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think he understand what “theory” means quite well.

 

[mVitus]

I only ever heard of Dawkins because of people who say scientists use evolution to deny God brought him up.