Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
I think the scientific process provides a valid objective foundation for pursuing truth, especially in the realms of nature and discovering realities.
What I have a hard time accepting, is science or religion when it leaves out the possibilty of being short of the truth.
I think religion is a correctable process. There are many religions, and within a religion, there are many factions. Religious fundamentalism is an anchor slowing change, which may be good and bad. Religion, like science, does not exist in a vacuum.
What I find ironic in the evolution debate is what should be taught to adolescents. Adolescents, I think, should be introduced to the concepts of science and critical thought, in a number of areas - more breadth than depth. I do admit, mathematics is one area where I would like to see more depth.
Explaining that evolution is a scientific theory (superb or otherwise) that, like other theories, is incomplete and research to fill gaps continues should not be an anathema to scientists or educators.
It should also not be a conflict to teach religious and philosophical theories that try to fill in the gaps - in school to adolescents.
How else to develop critical thinking than to present differing points of view?
This is not my definition. Even Creationists use it. From here:
Even under this definiton I doubt you have literally observed evolution.
I haven't literally observed the Earth orbiting the sun.
I haven't literally observed Thomas Jefferson authoring the Declaration of Independence.
I didn't literally observe my mother giving birth to me.
I have not literally observed relativistic dialation of time.
And none of these have yielded any significant anomalies either. Quite the contrary, each of these has been confirmed by several independent sources, the methodology is sound, and is consistent with the rest of what I know.
You've become a parrot, a lemming, for those whose definition of the universe fits your pre-conceived notions.
This is know as "projection". The only evidence you can point to are problems for which you claim the current theory of evolution might not have an explanation. So let's pretend: Evolution has been discarded, abiogenesis has been falsified, and everyone knows it. Now present and support your designer theory.
Also, when should I expect your description of gravity?
Yeah, just like we laugh at that dumb schmuck who built the first wheel! Heehee, what a maroon! I can't believe they ever thought that was useful.
Ahh, geez, however did they survive?
Allow me to step in here, gentlemen:
Genesis:There are no waters above the firmament. QED
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
The problem for evolutionists is that it takes over 2,000 different enzymes in specific combination for the creation of one (1) protein cell.
The liklihood of those some 2,000 enzymes occurring at the same place in that pond as necessary to create one (1) protein cell is 1 to the 40th power. That is, 1 X 10 followed by 39,999 zeros.
Given that the entire number of atoms estimated to exist in the known universe is only 1 X 10 followed by 7,300 zeros, the mathematical liklihood of that random collection of enzymes in Darwin's "warm pond" creating the first protein far exceeds any statistical probability for its ever having happened, even if the world were trillions of years old.
It was a creative Theory, but nothing more. And what science now knows pretty well debunks both the Theory and its apologists.
Of course, evolutionists don't like to talk about this problem with their little "theory."
Source? Evidence that your one specific combination is the ONLY life-sustaining cominination? Evidence that insists that life must have jumped from zero to fully-formed cell--with no intervening reactions--in a single step?
The liklihood of those some 2,000 enzymes occurring at the same place in that pond as necessary to create one (1) protein cell is 1 to the 40th power. That is, 1 X 10 followed by 39,999 zeros.
Based on what assumptions? How big is your pond? Of what is it comprised? Why assume that each molecule exists as an individual entity? What energy source(s) drives the reactions? Do these reaction occur at the surface or throughout the entire volume? What about thermal vents? Are there any other ponds that we might consider? Are they on this planet or on ANY planet? Do you have probabilities for the other planets? Do you see where I'm going with this?
<shakes head>
That is, 1 X 10 followed by 39,999 zeros.
<puts head in hands>
I like it.
Outside? Can you point me in the right direction?
Hell of an imitation if it isn't.
Titan is one of the moons of -- you guessed it -- Saturn!
To equivocate the layman use of "theory" respectively "fact" with the scientific ones is a common tactic used by creationists (and I don't know if they do it deliberately or because they don't know better) which is listed on this webpage (together with some other "tactics"):
Equivocation and Half-Truth: The "Just a Theory" Argument. Equivocation is the act either of misusing an agreed-upon term or of using two different definitions for a single word in the same argument. One of the creationists' favorite tactics is to equivocate words such as "theory" and "fact." They thereby take advantage of the fact that these terms carry very precise meanings for scientists, and quite different, more fuzzy meanings to the general public. No scientist will dispute the claim that Evolution is a theory, but to say that "Evolution is just a theory" implies the commonly believed falsehood that theories "grow up" to be facts or scientific laws. This is patently untrue, and the creationists know it. Newton's Theory of Gravity? Still just a theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Nothing but a theory. Theories are falsifiable logical constructs which attempt to explain observed facts and extrapolate to predict future observations. They never become facts (i.e. observations) themselves. Thus one could never "observe" the Theory of Gravity, but you can test its predictions by dropping apples from trees. This scientific definition is somewhat at variance with the popular definition of a theory as an "hypothesis" or a "guess." Thus in a debate situation, when a scientist agrees that Evolution is "just a theory," the audience hears "just a guess." Similarly, when a creationist claims that "Evolution has never been observed," he is technically correct in the same sense that the Theory of Gravity has never been observed. The consequences (predictions) of evolutionary theory, however, are observed on a daily basis. Creationism, by the way, does not qualify for the hallowed halls of scientific theory. Since it makes no predictions, it cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot be a theory. It's not that Creationism is an inadequate theory; it's not even a theory at all. The second term that creationist love to equivocate is "prediction." Again, this is a term which to a scientist has a very specific meaning which is somewhat in opposition to the popular definition. A theory need not predict the future; it need only predict the outcomes of future observations or experiments. These observations may concern past as well as future events. For instance, I can use the theory of gravity to predict ancient eclipses. Opposed to this view of the phrase "prediction," Creationists often insist that a theory must be able to predict future specific events like what humans will evolve into next. At a creationist lecture, I was even told that a theory must be confirmed by experiment alone; that observations of nature outside the lab don't qualify. This is advantageous to the Creationists, since using this definition, astronomy, archaeology, and geology are not sciences.Even Stephen Jay Gould addressed this issue in his article Evolution as Fact and Theory where especially this excerpt should be mentioned:
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
A word of friendly grammar advice: try, "of what is it composed," or, "what does it comprise". The parts compose the whole, the whole comprises the parts. (Yeah, I know, grammar/spelling corrections are bad netiquette, but I see this too often.)
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.