C
catharina
Guest
What are mofos?
- Status
P
phil8888
Guest
No. It’s the law of gravity, not theory, and it’s the theory of evolution. plus the evolution people have a LOT of gaps and holes they can’t account for.
I
iamme
Guest
you sure read this thread all the way through!
R
Robertsxxx
Guest
I
iamme
Guest
the good kind, obviously!
like shaft!
D
Dameedna
Guest
Here is the way in which I have tried to explain the concept of “theory” to an individual who isn’t using it correctly. IE, evolution is a theory.
Here’s my example.
Think of music. We know that music exists(as much as we can “know” anything). Music itself is not an idea. It is not a hypothesis. It’s existance, is verifiable.
When one studies Music theory, one is not studying the “question” or hypothesis of wether music exists.
One is studying the mechanism that creates music. You study rhythm, you study key signatures, you study tempo, you study instruments, you study the history of different musical periods and what they evolved into.
The THEORY of music, is it’s building blocks. Music theory, is not a hypothesis about the existance of music.
Evolution, is considered a fact as is music.
The theory of evolution is what we call Natural Selection. When you study the theory behind evolution, you study HOW we evolved. You aren’t studying the idea that we evolved or the hypothesis. You are studying evolutions building blocks, the same as when you study music theory.
Evolutionary theory and music theory, are pretty much the same thing. That music and evolution exist…is not in doubt.
If some-one really wants to understand the difference, this is the best way I’ve been able to describe it, in laymens terms.
Here’s my example.
Think of music. We know that music exists(as much as we can “know” anything). Music itself is not an idea. It is not a hypothesis. It’s existance, is verifiable.
When one studies Music theory, one is not studying the “question” or hypothesis of wether music exists.
One is studying the mechanism that creates music. You study rhythm, you study key signatures, you study tempo, you study instruments, you study the history of different musical periods and what they evolved into.
The THEORY of music, is it’s building blocks. Music theory, is not a hypothesis about the existance of music.
Evolution, is considered a fact as is music.
The theory of evolution is what we call Natural Selection. When you study the theory behind evolution, you study HOW we evolved. You aren’t studying the idea that we evolved or the hypothesis. You are studying evolutions building blocks, the same as when you study music theory.
Evolutionary theory and music theory, are pretty much the same thing. That music and evolution exist…is not in doubt.
If some-one really wants to understand the difference, this is the best way I’ve been able to describe it, in laymens terms.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Sorry, but you are wrong. It is the theories of gravity along with the fact of gravity and the laws of gravity. The theories are different from the laws.
Peace
Tim
P
phil8888
Guest
I’ve never heard of the theory of gravity. I heard of newton’s law of gravity.
it seems people are speaking of evolution as if it’s a synonym for natural selection. natural selection isn’t even a big deal.
O
Orogeny
Guest
This is from a quick Google search.
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm
Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution. I don’t know what you mean by “isn’t even a big deal”.
Peace
Tim
P
phil8888
Guest
I just mean it’s like if the trees turn black then the black moths will live because the birds can’t see them. no big deal.
O
Orogeny
Guest
P
phil8888
Guest
haha
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
there is a problem here, many ‘theories’ have legitimate competition, take quantum mechanics for instance, there are at least a dozen different interpretations of the same data all of which are mutually exclusive, as in if one is correct all the others must be wrong, people dont say thats ‘only a theory’ only because something is not yet proven, but rather because it may well be false.
i prefer to stick with what we reasonably know as opposed to what we wish to be true.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi All,
I’ve always loved this quote of Einstein that I think describes theories well:
“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”
Best,
Leela
I’ve always loved this quote of Einstein that I think describes theories well:
“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”
Best,
Leela
B
Beltany13
Guest
The purpose of this thread, I think, is to silence Intelligent Design proponents by stating what most learned ID proponents - and I believe I am included in this - already know: that a scientific theory is markedly different than a theory as commoners know it; i.e, a guess or supposition. Therefore, in the interest of clarity, I would like to explain a few things to the OP.
First and foremost, I believe it best to point out that few Intelligent Design proponents completely reject evolution; repudiation of something observed borders on complete irrationality and is completely illogical. Micro- evolution, for example, has been observed in laboratories for decades, and now, apparently, scientists are observing evolution taking place among certain hunted animals. So, rejecting evolution itself is absurd.
However, before going any further, let’s understand the basic definition of evolution: a change in gene frequencies overtime, typically the result of mutations, natural selection, and allelic drift. Simple enough, right?
Yes, but only until you understanding what is proposed by macro-evolution.
Darwinists look at evolution as it is observed in laboratories and elsewhere - very small and minute changes - and then postulate that all species originated from a single organism via the observed mechanism; i.e., natural selection, random mutations, and allelic drift. So essentially what we have is an argumentative fallacy. They look at what we know and observe, then use it to prove their own personal, non-scientific, theories; almost like a bait-and-switch.
What we can test and see is evolution, but on a very small scale. No transitional fossils have been found to prove macro-evolution. So, what’s the Darwinist response? See below:
Imagine an album of photos of your family. You are on the front page, your father on the next, his father on the next and so on. Flicking between the first two pages, you and your father are clearly related, since you share physical characteristics such as the shape of your noses or the colour of your eyes. As you flip through the album, going back hundreds of generations2 it is immediately obvious that each family member is related to the next, thanks to their clear similarities. You may sometimes even find you share identical characteristics with some earlier ancestors, even though these traits ‘go missing’ in between.
On a whim, you stop flicking back and turn straight to your own photo. You pause, and turn back to where you were. Something is wrong. You and the man you were looking at share no similarities. He is short, you are tall, his face is round, yours is square. Yet you know that he is related to you. At some point in the intervening generations, you stopped looking like your ancestors. Fortunately, you have every single generation in between, so it is easy to see the transition between the ancestor and you, and it is easy to prove that your ancestor is your ancestor.
Now imagine the album going back billions of years, including every single generation of your family, all the way back to the first protobacteria. Flick through the album quickly, very quickly, and it’s like a movie with excellent special effects: the protobacteria morphs smoothly into you, via several strange shapes on the way. It is still easy to see the change from goo to you. Every photo shows a small transition in the process of change. This is the level of evidence most creationists demand from scientists before they will accept that evolution occurs.
Convincing, huh? ID proponents reject macro-evolution because: 1). There’s no proof of it; and 2). How plausible is it that everything we see just happened by mere chance?
bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4351628
Another fallacy in the argument above is labeling Intelligent Design proponents “creationists.” The two are different.
First and foremost, I believe it best to point out that few Intelligent Design proponents completely reject evolution; repudiation of something observed borders on complete irrationality and is completely illogical. Micro- evolution, for example, has been observed in laboratories for decades, and now, apparently, scientists are observing evolution taking place among certain hunted animals. So, rejecting evolution itself is absurd.
However, before going any further, let’s understand the basic definition of evolution: a change in gene frequencies overtime, typically the result of mutations, natural selection, and allelic drift. Simple enough, right?
Yes, but only until you understanding what is proposed by macro-evolution.
Darwinists look at evolution as it is observed in laboratories and elsewhere - very small and minute changes - and then postulate that all species originated from a single organism via the observed mechanism; i.e., natural selection, random mutations, and allelic drift. So essentially what we have is an argumentative fallacy. They look at what we know and observe, then use it to prove their own personal, non-scientific, theories; almost like a bait-and-switch.
What we can test and see is evolution, but on a very small scale. No transitional fossils have been found to prove macro-evolution. So, what’s the Darwinist response? See below:
Imagine an album of photos of your family. You are on the front page, your father on the next, his father on the next and so on. Flicking between the first two pages, you and your father are clearly related, since you share physical characteristics such as the shape of your noses or the colour of your eyes. As you flip through the album, going back hundreds of generations2 it is immediately obvious that each family member is related to the next, thanks to their clear similarities. You may sometimes even find you share identical characteristics with some earlier ancestors, even though these traits ‘go missing’ in between.
On a whim, you stop flicking back and turn straight to your own photo. You pause, and turn back to where you were. Something is wrong. You and the man you were looking at share no similarities. He is short, you are tall, his face is round, yours is square. Yet you know that he is related to you. At some point in the intervening generations, you stopped looking like your ancestors. Fortunately, you have every single generation in between, so it is easy to see the transition between the ancestor and you, and it is easy to prove that your ancestor is your ancestor.
Now imagine the album going back billions of years, including every single generation of your family, all the way back to the first protobacteria. Flick through the album quickly, very quickly, and it’s like a movie with excellent special effects: the protobacteria morphs smoothly into you, via several strange shapes on the way. It is still easy to see the change from goo to you. Every photo shows a small transition in the process of change. This is the level of evidence most creationists demand from scientists before they will accept that evolution occurs.
Convincing, huh? ID proponents reject macro-evolution because: 1). There’s no proof of it; and 2). How plausible is it that everything we see just happened by mere chance?
bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4351628
Another fallacy in the argument above is labeling Intelligent Design proponents “creationists.” The two are different.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Beltany13,
I applaud you for wanting to see more evidence before being convinced of the Darwinian account of evolution. It is such a taste for evidence in support of our beliefs that is sorely needed.
Where I imagine we part company (and I don’t know you so I can’t be sure) is in thinking that such a taste for evidence is irrelevant to a particular category of belief, namely, religious ones. In Christianity, it is held to be a virtue to believe based on ambiguous or even contradictory evidence, while in science such faith is a severe liability and is intellectually dishonest. In fact, science in the broadest sense of the word is simply our best efforts at distinguishing what we’d like to believe and what we have good reason to believe.
I’m suggesting that ID proponents such as yourself may be applying a double-standard. Scientific propositions are held to such a high standard of evidence that even evolutionary theory is held in doubt, while much less well-justified assertions made by the Christian religion are held to be true. Or do you think the evidence for Christianity’s truth is stronger than that of evolutionary theory?
Best,
Leela
I applaud you for wanting to see more evidence before being convinced of the Darwinian account of evolution. It is such a taste for evidence in support of our beliefs that is sorely needed.
Where I imagine we part company (and I don’t know you so I can’t be sure) is in thinking that such a taste for evidence is irrelevant to a particular category of belief, namely, religious ones. In Christianity, it is held to be a virtue to believe based on ambiguous or even contradictory evidence, while in science such faith is a severe liability and is intellectually dishonest. In fact, science in the broadest sense of the word is simply our best efforts at distinguishing what we’d like to believe and what we have good reason to believe.
I’m suggesting that ID proponents such as yourself may be applying a double-standard. Scientific propositions are held to such a high standard of evidence that even evolutionary theory is held in doubt, while much less well-justified assertions made by the Christian religion are held to be true. Or do you think the evidence for Christianity’s truth is stronger than that of evolutionary theory?
Best,
Leela
F
Fran65
Guest
Actually the purpose of the thread is to discuss the the difference between the lay use of the term ‘theory’ and the scientific use of the term ‘theory’. As stated very early in the thread, the two uses are quite different.
The thread has nothing to do with ID, creationism or evolution other than as examples of the usage of the term theory.
ID, creationism and evolution have been discussed over, over and over again. There are many, many threads that you can revisit if you wish!
Personally, I would like to see much better education about science and its philosophy in schools and universities. It would stop many arguments before they begin if people in general understood what the scientific term means.
The thread has nothing to do with ID, creationism or evolution other than as examples of the usage of the term theory.
ID, creationism and evolution have been discussed over, over and over again. There are many, many threads that you can revisit if you wish!
Personally, I would like to see much better education about science and its philosophy in schools and universities. It would stop many arguments before they begin if people in general understood what the scientific term means.
B
Beltany13
Guest
I think the best thing for me to do is quote one of the founders of the theory; namely, Stephen C. Meyer.
And rather than present the entire article, I’m just going to present the parts crucial to my point and the rest people can read for themselves; I hope that is O.K.
Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University’s Richard Dawkins, living systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.
But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is illusory, because the purely undirected process of natural selection acting on random mutations is entirely sufficient to produce the intricate designed-like structures found in living organisms.
By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
What signs of intelligence do design advocates see?
In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn’t work. The motor is, in Behe’s words, “irreducibly complex”.
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or “selects” functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can “select” the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.
Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotides in DNA store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - in a four-character digital code for building the protein molecules the cell needs to survive. Crick then developed his “sequence hypothesis”, in which the chemical bases in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Dawkins has noted, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like”.
The informational features of the cell at least appear designed. Yet, to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.
telegraph.co.uk/comment/3622692/Intelligent-design-is-not-creationism.html
Now, I would like to add a bit of commentary.
First of all, I’m not proposing that ID is fact; I simply don’t know. However, I believe ID is a more reasonable theory - philosophically - than evolution, because, looking around, the chance that all of this happened by mere chance - natural selection - is absurd to me.
And it’s not a double standard for the following reasons: 1). I’m not asking that ID be taught as fact; and 2). Regardless of its implications, ID does not necessarily endorse any religion.
Macro-evolution is taught as fact in biology class; at least that’s how it seemed to me when I was there not so long ago. And when you have very little evidence and simply assumptions, it’s probably a good idea to exercise a little prudence. Because a divine figure seems the only other reasonable conclusion, secularists have jumped on the evolution train and are really distorting what evolution is.
B
Beltany13
Guest
And what reason, on a religious forum, might the definition of “scientific theory” be at all relevant?
Hence, my point.
I’m not looking to discuss ID. If you read my post, my purpose was to clarify what ID proponents think of evolution.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Beltany,
The above just sounds to me like “God of the gaps” talk–a position that has had religion in a slow retreat since Galileo and one that I would expect that theists do not want to be in.
Saying that the theory of evolution has not adequately explained some things as well as many of us would like is different from saying that you possess a theory that does explain those things (i.e., ID).
Since the point of this thread is to define what is meant by a scientific theory, it seems appropriate to ask if ID really is one.
Best,
Leela
- Status