Replies

I usually manage to read a book or two a month, selections often influenced by the debates on FreeRepublic. Last week I picked up this book:

Scott, Evolution Vs. Creationism

Among other points of interest, you might note that she corrected what I learned in high school science class (many years ago) about the nature of science.

The way I learned it, back then:

Scientists begin with data.
From which they form hypotheses to explain the data
A tested and confirmed hypothesis then becomes a theory.
A theory tested and confirmed many times may become a "scientific law." And there are relatively few "laws of science."

Well turns out, that's not right, because it misses the main point.

The actual sequence is as follows:

Science begins with facts, which are confirmed observations. Example: "living things are composed of cells."

From the facts, scientists form testable hypotheses to explain the facts. Example: "If brightly colored male guppies are more likely to attract predators, then in environments with high predation, guppies will be less brightly colored."

Sometimes a confirmed hypothesis can be reduced to a scientific law, which is usually a mathematical statement of what will happen under certain circumstances. The scientific law says WHAT will happen, but it does not explain WHY.

To explain WHY requires a THEORY. A scientific theory is a confirmed hypothesis explaining why facts and laws work the way they do. No theory is "proved," but theories are confirmed, or might be disproved.

Point is: a theory is not "less than a law," but rather uses facts and laws to form higher explanations of what is going on in the natural world.

In short: a theory is still a theory, no matter how many times it's confirmed.

I usually manage to read a book or two a month, selections often influenced by the debates on FreeRepublic.

Supplement that with some classic evolution books. Like this one, which was one of the most popular evolution books in Germany:

The Evolution of Man

The book was also published by Charles Kerr &co. Here's Kerr's promo blurb:

"Modern socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution, and it is impossible to understand it without some knowledge of that theory. Now evolution is accepted as a working basis in every university of Europe and America, and no one with a scientific education wastes time in questioning it. Nevertheless, there has until now been no popular explanation of the evolution of man in simple form at a low price. There is a very good reason for this. If laborers understand science, they become socialists, and the capitalists who control most publishing houses naturally do not want them to understand it. "The Evolution of Man" tells in full detail, in a clear, simple style, illustrated by pictures, just how the descent of man can be traced back through monkeys, marsupials, amphibians, fishes, worms and lower forms of life, down to the animals composed each of a single cell. Moreover, it proves that there is no such fixed line as was formerly thought to exist between the organic and the inorganic, but that the same life-force molds the crystal that molds the cell. It is not only simple; it is up to date and gives the latest discoveries in science. It is the book on the subject."

[[Sometimes a confirmed hypothesis can be reduced to a scientific law, which is usually a mathematical statement of what will happen under certain circumstances. The scientific law says WHAT will happen, but it does not explain WHY.]]

OK- A couple of points here- In this htread- you will find an aerticle which talks abotu htis very issue- the ‘law’ is beign established, and it is showing Naturalism to be imposible, while establishing the fact that there HAD to be mega-informaiton right fro mthe start because a chemical system can not naturalistically gain information until it coems to the point of higher completed information because htere are no ‘higher species’ from which to gain from, and nature is incapable of creating stepwise information- it can ONLY change information already available to it all within specific parameters which exclude Macroevolutionary developement. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2161800/posts?page=239#239

Secondly- Yuo can hypothesise WHAT will happen, AND show HOW and WHY it happens- the article I pointed to above

[[Point is: a theory is not “less than a law,” but rather uses facts and laws to form higher explanations of what is going on in the natural world.]]

That’s all fine and well, but when a theory like Macroevolution consitently violates bioogical, natural, and mathematical laws, it doesn’t ‘explain’ anyhting, all it does it ignore the facts while tryign to ram through a religious belief despite the evidences against it