that's totally different, i loved all my science classes, i learned a great deal. In fact, i was taught very little about the evolutionary theory at all, feel free to rip me a new one for that, i wont mind. It's just a theory. Why does everyone go ape when some people object to it? Isn't that the point of a theory?
I was taught very little too, think it consisted of one 2 hour lesson with darwin finches and anti-bacterial resistance. I can't recall any historical evolution being taught at all.
It's not so much that people object to it and come up with sensible criticisms, its that a lot of people attack it without really knowing what it is, use a very tired out set of flawed arguments, and make out that the entire field is nothing more than a guess.
That is unfortunate. IMHO, TOE should be taught right along side of physics and chemistry.
It's just a theory. Why does everyone go ape when some people object to it? Isn't that the point of a theory?
First:
Here is a nice page of what a theory is:
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 personal 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.
Second:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
I speak for myself only, but I suspect my feelings on this matter are applicable to others as well:
First of all, in at least 90% of the cases, the "questioning" of evolution has its basis in some scientific misconception (such as including abiogensis as part of evolution, arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, or "it's only a theory!", to name just a few) or logical fallacy (for example, an argument from consequences that evolution implies that there is no basis for morality). Such arguments are swiftly and easily dealt with, but it becomes frustrating to have to debunk the same tired and ridiculous arguments time and time again. It is especially galling when the argument is presented for the umpteenth time by someone who has been debating on these threads for a long time and should know better.
Almost all of the rest of the "questioning" falls outside the realm of science and squarely into theological "questioning" of the theory, which is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory. The only problem is that the creationists don't want to hear or accept this fact. Here it is bluntly for all of you: Scientists don't give a damn what the Bible says. Whether evolution is consistent with, inconsistent with, or partially consistent with the Bible is simply irrelevant to the question of whether it is a valid scientific theory or not.
Note that stating that evolution is a valid scientific theory is NOT the same as saying that it's true. We are well aware of the fact that all theories are subject to revision as new data comes in. Personally, I am also well aware of the limitations of science. If God really did create the earth and the universe exactly as stated in a literal reading of Genesis, then science will never be able to determine this. Supernatural action is outside the realm of science. There's no way to falsify the notion that "God did it," precisely because any potentially falsifying observation can be explained away by divine will. Evolution, on the other hand, like any scientific theory could potentially be falsified by the right observation. Just find a human fossil reliably dated to over 1 billion years old, for example, and the current theory of evolution would be falsified.
This leads me to the last point of frustration, however. Namely that there are those on these threads whose "questioning" of evolution is meant to imply that since evolution is not a valid theory, then creationism must be the correct answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, in my above falsification example, if a 1 billion year-old human fossil were actually found, our current theory of evolution would be in trouble. However, what would emerge is not creationism, but rather a new theory which incorporates much of the old theory, but with a revised timeline for human evolution (and probably a revised lineage of species as well). It is very frustrating to try to point out this false dichotomy fallacy to creationists who just don't see it and refuse to even consider the point.
So if you really believe that evolution is an invalid theory and wish to question it, how should you do so? After all, science is based on a healthy skepticism, so questioning of theories is to be welcomed, not scorned. This is true in the case of evolution, but the factors I have discussed above get in the way of serious questioning of the theory. Therefore, the first thing one wishing to question the theory of evolution should do is learn evolution. How can you seriously question a theory when you don't understand it? This, as mentioned before is the source of at least 90% of the questioning, and probably a similar percentage of the frustration that evos get from dealing with questioning of evolution. Therefore, learn what the theory actually says BEFORE you start questioning it. Furthermore, you probably should learn the basics of some other fields of science, since the evidence for evolution is based on multiple disciplines. For example, a knowledge of some general principles of geology (as it relates to the laying down of rock strata, and the subsequent inclusion of fossils), physics (basic principles of radiometric dating, so you don't make a fool of yourself by arguing that carbon dating is unreliable), and genetics (so you understand the basic principles of the genetic code and can avoid making silly statement like "almost all mutations are harmful") would be helpful, just to name a couple.
I realize that this is a tall order, but should you wish to tackle all that, and you still are questioning the validity of evolution, the next step would be to come up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation. As part of your explanation, you should specify what observations would lead you to abandon the explanation. Then you should look to see if these falsifying observations have in fact been observed. This is the point at which both creationism and ID fail. Both of these ideas have no falsification criteria. There is no way to empirically test either of them. Both may in fact be correct, but neither will ever be scientific. If you are serious about developing an alternative theory and making a real, serious challenge to evolution, you would be well advised also to check your Bible at the door as well. As mentioned above, theological ideas are not science, and Biblical verse in not admissable as empirical evidence in scientific debates and discussions.
I suspect that anyone who does what I have outlined above will stop short of developing a serious challenge to evolution, mainly because the weight of the evidence in favor of evolution is truly overwhelming. If your religious beliefs get in the way of following the evidence to where it leads, then I respect that. I am not, nor would I ever, try to change anyone's fundamental religious beliefs. However, I do object to the use of these beliefs as a challenge to science. Should you choose not to make a serious scientific challenge to evolution, then evolution will remain the accepted scientific theory regarding the origin of biodiversity. If you wish to believe otherwise as a matter of faith, then again, I respect that, but don't try to pretend that you have brought up anything that seriously questions the scientific validity of evolution.