Posted on 08/03/2006 9:23:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
She's a moron. The only political ad I've seen from her is one about how much she's saved on paperclips. I'll be working very hard to get her out.
You need to read up on what a theory is. Here are some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 7/16/06]
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
What is your proposed alternative to science for answering questions about the physical world?
Ah yes, another crevo thread. We all know the entire community of reputable scientists are owned wholesale by the Democratic party, even Darwin who foresaw the Kansas board fights of the new millennium. Scientists are stupid and hicks who follow Fred Phelps around are the most reputable source of info for origins of life </sarc>
None good enough to teach in school as if they held water.
Or are you advocating teaching the usual creationist bogus and dishonest "arguments"?
and that evolution theory is a done deal.
It's as much a done deal as atomic theory and relativity. Or do you want to have people in schools to argue against those too?
Is this what passes for a valid analogy in Evol Land? Based on what I typically see from evols, it would appear so.
Sure doesn't do much to enhance the credibility of the theory of evolution.
As compared to Creationism/ID, which is a primitive non-scientific theory with the same answer to every question: Goddidit.
I know all about the definitions of science. However, science likes to pass off theories as fact (in layman's terms), and they are not. That is what is happening with the theory of evolution. Science is trying to pass it off as having no contrary views or flaws.
In what way? Be specific, or we'll laugh you out of the thread for making claims you can't support.
but no one in a school is allowed to state that
Because it's not true.
because science won't accept any criticism of evolution.
Complete horse manure. Do you spew blatant falsehoods like this often?
I don't have any problem with schools teaching evolution,
Sure sounds like it.
but they should be allowed to point out that it is just a scientific theory that has flaws.
They do. Happy now?
Science loses a lot of credibility with me when they won't admit that the theory of evolution has flaws.
And when do you hallucinate that anyone has ever done such a thing? And no, your "impressions" don't count -- let's see you cite anyone actually saying that evolutionary biology (or any field of science) is complete and no longer provisional. We'll wait.
Again, nothting to do with science
Oh, brother. (shaking head in disbelief)
You logic is well if ID is not science, then evolution must be correct just because science says so. Who says that science can come up with the answer either?
I Tim. 6:20 - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:021 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
"Most" things? Support your claim, and document your sources.
so science has very little credibility at finding answers.
Translation: Hendrix is anti-science and feels free to ignore and findings that he doesn't want to think about.
The fact that something is not science does not bother me because most of science is junk anyway and it is full of politics and dishonesty.
"Most" science is junk? Again, feel free to support your silly claim, if you think you can. To begin, go ahead and convince us that you have any familiarity whatsoever with "most" of science.
Science is like the old media--it is losing its credibility to be objective.
And anti-science bias is like liberalism...
I'd be inteterested in any non-scientific arguments against the flat earth.
I've said it before, and in all seriousness I'll say it again. I consider evolution to be a "more correct" theory than the atomic theory of matter. The former is more firmly established in terms of factual evidence, and constitutes a more accurate description of its subject than the latter.
It sounds like you are admitting that evolution theory has flaws. That is what everyone should admit, but many won't including most of the people who have posted in this thread. If they teach in schools that evolution is only a theory and it has flaws, then I am happy, end of story. Do you go to every school in the US and know what is taught? I don't, but my impression from what I have read is that schools are not allowed to teach it is just a theory that has flaws.
When I say it is flawed science, I mean that it has flaws or unanswered questions, etc.
...then you won't have any trouble supporting your claim, right? Hint: Cherry-picking a few examples won't do a damned thing to help your claim, unless you can demonstrate that those few examples constitute "most of science".
We await your stunningly convincing proof of your biased claim.
Evolution has lots of flaws.
And what would those be?
Just admit it and I am fine with it.
It isn't complete, no field of science is (nor is any other variety of human knowledge). But I strongly suspect that the nature of its incompleteness is vastly different from your wild guesses about its alleged "flaws".
I would say the reason science does not want to admit that is because they are anti-religious.
I would say the reason you say this is because you read too many creationist tracts and too few science journals.
Let's just be honest.
Yes, let's do -- will you be honest enough to document your wild accusations, or will you be honest enough to retract them if you can't? Evolution has lots of flaws. Just admit it and I am fine with it. I would say the reason science does not want to admit that is because they are anti-religious. Let's just be honest.
"Be honest and admit that the theory of evolution is a primitive theory with flaws. If you don't, then you show that you are dishonest or you treat the theory as some type of religion."
The ToE is the best explanation of life on Earth's amazing diversity and richness that we've found. Failure to agree with *that* indicates you simply know little about it, and are attacking it on religious grounds. The only people going around claiming evolution is 'flawed' or 'primitive' are people who don't understand it, or are against it a priori for non-scientfic reasons.
Which other scientific theories do you hate? Is electromagnetism un-Godly? Are we to teach the Theory of Intelligent Magnetics because Maxwell didn't mention God in his equations? Look up Trofim Lysenko on what happens when you enforce doctrine over evidence.
--R.
"And science does not have the answers or the ability to find the answers to most things,
"Most" things? Support your claim, and document your sources."
Are you kidding? People are just spewing out any argument now to just see if it sticks. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.