Posted on 12/26/2004 7:40:54 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
DOVER, Pa. - "God or Darwin?"
Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner, frames the question and answers it. "I definitely would prefer to believe that God created me than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape," she said. "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"
Charles Darwin, squeeze over. The school board in this small town in central Pennsylvania has voted to make the theory of evolution share a seat with another theory: God probably designed us.
If it survives a legal test, this school district of about 2,800 students could become the first in the nation to require that high school science teachers at least mention the "intelligent design" theory. This theory holds that human biology and evolution is so complex as to require the creative hand of an intelligent force.
"The school board has taken the measured step of making students aware that there are other viewpoints on the evolution of species," said Richard Thompson, of the Thomas More Law Center, which represents the board and describes its overall mission as defending "the religious freedom of Christians."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
In October, the Dover school board passed this motion: "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught."
It's about time. I can't understand how this whole evolution debate got so out of control? Obviously, if something is a "theory", there must be more than one theory or it would be fact. What other theories have they been teaching? You would think scientists and teachers would have enough of an open mind (what liberals are always shouting they we conservatives don't have) to acknowledge more than one theory. And I think the Thomas More Law Center is going to do a lot of great things. A great counter to the ACLU.
This is all most creationists ask for.
Yes, except that you will be told that when They use the word "theory," it means "fact." Not only can the common rabble not make any sense out of what our eyes see, we don't even know our own language.
Modern Darwinism: the New Spanish Inquisition.
Dan
Wrongo. Theories are the strongest and most postitive statements made by science. Theories are more durable and subject to fewer corrections over time that laws and facts
|
Obviously, if something is a "theory", there must be more than one theory or it would be fact. </p>
Not really. There are things like the Theory of Gravity. And the Theory of Relativity. There aren't really alternatives but they are still considered theories.
Nope---the hierarachy is 1) Law, 2) Theory, 3) Hypothesis (organized from "strongest" to "weakest")
Nope. A theory in science is much more than a WAG. In fact a theory is the end point. No matter how much evidence is accumulated a theory can only remain a theory. Actually "Laws" and "facts" require far less rigor that a theory. Let us use gravity as an example again. There is the law of gravity. However it has been superceded by the theory of gravity.
Nope. A theory can never become a "fact".
Actually a theory is the end point. Not a law. Laws can be wrong and still remain a law. Case in point, gravity.
Face it, this is yet another bimbo from a never ending, and extremely long line of bimbo's. ;)
This is the whole problem of the evolution denier - it's sociological rather than a scientific issue.
That wasn't the way "I" was taught.
Kind of you to ping me to your QED of my prediction.
Now, if only I could turn that precognitive ability into something lucrative.....
Dan
Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner, frames the question and answers it. "Science is hard. Let's go shopping"
Laws and theories are not in the same hierarchy. Laws are mathematical descriptions of relationships between phenomena. They have to be modified to accomodate new data and extreme conditions. Laws are very useful in engineering, but they do not describe the how or why of things.
Evolution as we discuss it on these threads can never be considered a law. It doesn't involve any simple mathematical relationships.
As we discuss it on these threads, evolution is a fact of history, established by 200 years of accumulated forensic evidence. There is more and better evidence for evolution than for any criminal case resulting in the death penalty. I conceed that 200 years of science could be wrong, but the standard of evidence is much higher, and the intensity of cross examination much tougher than in any criminal case.
Evolution has also spawned many theories, one of which is natural selection. If you look at the history of science you will find that evolution was accepted as a forensically established fact long before there was a theory to expalain it. Prior to Darwin, the most common theory was intelligent design.
There are different theories of gravity. Many believe that gravity itself is a wave that can/will be measured. Einstein had doubts that gravity per se actually exists but that what we see and call gravity are the results of "dents in space" towards which objects simply fall. Gravity is a theory as is electricty and the origin of humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."
For Laws:
"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."
Let me post my example of gravity:
A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
And finally:
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."
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.