Phony Theory, False Conflict

Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

[raj bhatia]

A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

[Aracelis]

Newton was a heretical Chrisitian. Einstein: not so much

Well, the second part of your statement is factual, for Einstein was raised a JEW.

[Aracelis]

First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God.

Have IQs dropped suddenly??? Einstein was raised Jewish.

[BackInBlack]

"You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another. "

That's simply wrong. A hypothesis is what you test one way or the other; a theory is what happens what that hypothesis has been tested repeatedly and widely accepted by scientists as true.

[BackInBlack]

"Evolution is the creation of new species. This has not been proven"

Have you ever read a book explaining evolution and marshalling the evidence for it? You really don't have a clue!

[Mazeman]

"Don't be a dope; get a dictionary.

Mutation - any change in the DNA of an organism...beneficial mutations may increase in the population due to natural selection...

Evolution - the gradual process of genetic change that occurs in populations of organisms..."

I'm not sure what this proves. I agree with both definitions, sort of. These defintions, though, inject a hint of Darwinism, but I'll grant them.
I agree DNA changes occur (mutation).
I'll agree that the above is a definition of evolution.
Does the dictionary tell you that one results in the other?
And could you look up species while you're at it?

[Aracelis]

I agree with both definitions, sort of. These defintions, though, inject a hint of Darwinism

I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other. Beneficial mutations are preserved in populations. Over considerable time, an entirely new organism may emerge that is more biologically "fit" than its predecessor.

And no, I will not look up "species" for you. Do a Google search...or write your own darned dictionary, as you seem to know everything anyway.

[Mazeman]

"A hypothesis is what you test one way or the other; a theory is what happens what that hypothesis has been tested repeatedly and widely accepted by scientists as true."

You don't say whether these repeated tests need to have proven anything.
Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species.
So in order to go from hypothesis to theory, you need a wide acceptance of scientists, not actual proof. So there's a political element?

[Coyoteman]

If and when 'evolution' is openly and plainly taught with the clear disclaimer that it is an unobservable theory, impossible to recreate in a laboratory, then it will be the enemy of nothing. But since they teach it as doctrine in public schools, colleges and the media, as though the theory is not controversial in the science community, it is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth.

The theory of evolution is a theory, that is,

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"; "true in fact and theory"

It is not unobservable theory, as there is no such thing. There are facts and observations (also known as data; see the primate skulls, below, for some excellent, and very photogenic, examples). There are also hypotheses and theories. Observations and facts lead to hypotheses which can be tested. With repeated testing, and confirmation at each test, you can end up with a well-supported theory. That is what the theory of evolution is, a well-supported theory. It has withstood 150 years of testing, including testing by fields of investigation which did not even exist 150 years ago.

"When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence" [from an NSF abstract, cited in RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread].

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing from:

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

From your posts, it would seem that you are promoting a specific religious belief, and hoping to include it in science classes--where it clearly does not belong.

Finally, you write "[evolution] is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth."

I am sure you will not agree with this, but I would put ID, not evolution, in this category. ID is creation science with the serial numbers filed off, hoping nobody will notice. Although a form of ID has been around for millennia, the current push for ID was developed in the late 1980s when CS was removed from schools by a Supreme Court decision. It is CS flying under the radar, attempting to pass as science. It is promulgated by political means, not by scientific means, and the recent court case in Dover exposed some of the lies behind ID. From all of this, what am I to think, other than that ID is inherently dishonest?

(At least CS is honest about what it believes.)

---

Now, the data I promised (enjoy--these are some beautiful specimens):

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Mazeman]

"I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other."

Right in front of our noses? Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident?
"One leads to another"? That's the whole leap in assumption that we're arguing about. I guess I need to study Webster's more thoroughly for a more in-depth analysis of this controversy.

[flashbunny]

"This has not been proven"

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

Not the "LAW" of evolution.

[flashbunny]

"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "

Are you normally this obtuse or are you just trying extra hard today?

They dig for bones A) because that's what archeologists do and B) A new find can help fill in the picture or provide information to modify / perfect the theory.

[papasmurf]

My words exactly!

I've always said...God created evolution.


:O)

P

[Mazeman]

"That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

Not the "LAW" of evolution."

Agreed.

Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.

[flashbunny]

"and like so many of our HS graduates believe."

So many HS students belive all sorts of things, and it's not the fault of the subject being taught- it's the fault of either the teachers or the students.

When I learned about evolution, I understood it's a theory.

Anybody with half a brain should know that when things that can't be replicated firsthand - say, evolution or the formation of the planets and solar systems - that they are the prevailing theories based on our knowledge of the universe, the laws of physics, and the things we have been able to observe from collected evidence.

And I've never heard to evolution advanced as anything other than the "theory of evolution".

[Coyoteman]

Krauthammer conveniently uses the negative here. Science's role, traditionally, has been to prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation. You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another.

Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.

A quick review:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

Now, some definitions (from a google search):

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"; "true in fact and theory"

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"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

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"

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

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague 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"

You develop a hypothesis (not an assumption), and test it. If it is supported in the long run it can become a theory.

You do not "prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation." Neither "reproducable experiment" nor "direct observation" is required by science. A theory can never be proved, only supported or not supported.

"Darwinism" has been supported, not failed, as you claim:

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 [from an NSF abstract cited in RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread].

It is interesting to see how some on these threads criticize the way science, particularly evolution, works and demand the most exacting of "scientific proof" all the while pushing ID, essentially a religious belief which has no evidence, no method, no falsifiable hypotheses, and certainly no proof.

No wonder Kansas had to redefine "science" to try to get ID in the back door.

[Mazeman]

"I've always said...God created evolution."

So we humans are part of a continuum.
By your statement, I'm assuming your religious.
I'll also assume you're Christian. (although I could be wrong on this, and if so, I'm sorry)

If I'm correct in my assumptions, then at what point in this continuum is the cutoff for whom Christ saved? Homo erectus? Homo Sapien? Homo Sapien after a certain date? Or should we just toss this religious thing aside?

[Secret Agent Man]

You just touched on the big problem I see with the evolutionists today. To them, in order to be a good 'orthodox' scientist, you have to have a worldview that assumes there is no creator/designer and that long periods of time and random chance gets us to where we are today, and if you believe things were created/designed, you're a scientific throwback.

Not to mention that the founding fathers of science saw the natural order of things and it confirmed for them an intelligence behind all of the laws and repeatable processes they saw.

What's harder to believe, that all of this complexity organized itself from nothing (and we still don't know the cause of the big bang), or that the universe was designed and ordered by an intelligence?

I just love it. And depending how the debate is going, either evolution is a long process and slow mutation process, or a punctuated equilibrium (many chgs in short spurts of time) idea. I wonder why we all don't sit around and wonder what kind of animal is going to come out of our cat when it gives birth. How come we don't see totally new animals being born? I've had evolutionists paint me a picture telling me to imagine the first 'bird' hatching from a dinosaur egg. This is how these people think it could have occurred. (I do sure hope another 'miracle' change takes place somewhere nearby so another creature is made so they might be able to have a mate, but I guess if you're going to wish for one hopeful monster, you may as well believe that two of them somehow come into being at the same time.)

If that's how it happens, how come we aren't seeing any new things like this? It should be observable as we have so much life being born on this rock. I just see micro-evolution (variation within species) nad this is easily observed and repeatable. Cats begat more cats. Dogs begat more dogs. But I've never seen a cat give birth to a new non-cat creature.

You know I also heard that if you kiss a frog, you might be able to turn it into a prince. That's pretty close to punctuated equilibrium.

[Oztrich Boy]

If I'm correct in my assumptions, then at what point in this continuum is the cutoff for whom Christ saved? Homo erectus? Homo Sapien? Homo Sapien after a certain date?

Most of these died before accepting Christ, so the question is moot.

Even those believers who make an ezception for righteous pagans put the cut off after "hearing the Word". So Jeffery Dahmer is "saved", and the Dali Lama is "unsaved"

Or should we just toss this religious thing aside?

Gets my vote.

[Mazeman]

Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve.... OUTTA HERE!
Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Plato....BURN!
Got it.
This religion is an inconvenience.
Forget it. We'll follow the infallible religion of Science.