Faith in Theory (Great article by great conservative)

Opinion Journal ^ | December 26 2005 | James Q Wilson

[RightWingAtheist]

When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.

But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.

[dread78645]

A7,D13,A12 placemark

[SalukiLawyer]

Thanks, that's interesting. I wish the pictures showed up, though.

[trek]

" What environmental changes do you assert should have driven the Celocanth order to complete extinction?"

The same environmental changes that drove all the other orders swimming in the same waters into extinction.

[Dimensio]

The same environmental changes that drove all the other orders swimming in the same waters into extinction.

Could you elaborate? And you do realise that there are multiple, nonuniform environments, correct?

[hinckley buzzard]

I'm surprised no one has yet posted this article, by one of the foremost conservative thinkers of the modern era, but it's a great one.

James Q. Wilson was the originator of the "broken window" theory of crime which was adopted by Rudi Guiliani, which saved NY City from anarchy, and which propelled Rudi into pre-9/11 eminence. He is worth paying attention to.

[Virginia-American]

[living fossils]

My favorite is the dawn redwood. Beautiful tree, there are some here in DC in the National Arboretum. They were known from Cretacious fossils, a grove was found in China in the late '40s.

I believe gingkos (the only species in a whole phylum!) is considered one also.

[101st-Eagle]

Yeah, just the same old FACTS. Isn't that boring?

Well give me this fact. The author says some things in science are still unswered, such as "what was here before the big bang?" That is always a tricky one for atheistic scientists. The best I can get is "well thats the nature of it" blah, blah blah. "There was just a vacuum."

Well you tell me, How did that vacuum come to be? How did the matter come to be that hit critical mass and exploded to form the universe? How did time start? How will it end?

Many scientists are throwing in the towel on a unified theory solution. The most dogmatic just dance around it and espouse their "facts" as the tenants of their own psuedo-religion.

[Dimensio]

Well give me this fact. The author says some things in science are still unswered, such as "what was here before the big bang?" That is always a tricky one for atheistic scientists.

Tricky? It's nonsensical. The Big Bang marked the beginning of time. There was no "before".

[trek]

My point is very simple. Let me rephrase it for you.

If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment.

So my question is, in general, how does the Theory of Evolution account for differential evolution of species in a common environment? In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?

[101st-Eagle]

Thats impossible for science to prove.

[Dimensio]

Thats impossible for science to prove.

Nothing in science is ever proven.

Why did you bring up the Big Bang anyway? The article deals with evolution. The Big Bang is a completely different subject.

[Quark2005]

Well give me this fact. The author says some things in science are still unswered, such as "what was here before the big bang?" That is always a tricky one for atheistic scientists.

That's a tricky one for theistic scientists, too. (And theistic non-scientists, come to think of it...)

[Dimensio]

If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment.

But not all environments are the same, and not all mutations are the same even in similar (or identical) but seperate and isolated environments. This can and will result in different emergent species over time.

In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?

Their existing traits were sufficient to provide reproduction and new traits did not provide any significan reproductive advantage, even when environmental conditions might have changed.

[101st-Eagle]

In other words, you're just stating something as fact. Explain to me scientifically how there was no "before" before the big bang. You can't do it. All you will do is state it just is what it is. I believe that is weak.

[101st-Eagle]

Why did you bring up the Big Bang anyway? The article deals with evolution. The Big Bang is a completely different subject.

The AUTHOR brought up the big-bang. Pay attention.

[Dimensio]

In other words, you're just stating something as fact.

I'm explaining the implications of the Big Bang theory.

Explain to me scientifically how there was no "before" before the big bang.

How can there be a "before" when there is no time?

You can't do it.

Your inability to understand a relatively simple concept is not my failing.

All you will do is state it just is what it is.

I'm stating a direct implication of the Big Bang. You, however, have refused to explain why you even brough the totally irrelevant topic of the Big Bang into a discussion of the theory of evolution.

[Dimensio]

The AUTHOR brought up the big-bang. Pay attention.

Point taken. My apologies on that front. You, however, have not provided anything but a "I don't like it" response to the implication that there is no "before" the Big Bang.

[jwalsh07]

Long neck or short neck? :-}

[101st-Eagle]

That's a tricky one for theistic scientists, too. (And theistic non-scientists, come to think of it...)

Agreed. I just thing the science community implies having the high ground on ALL of the cosmological questions. This one always gets brushed aside. Move on here folks, nothing to see. I find them arrogant sometimes. That is why I have concluded that something out of the reach of our understanding is at work here and might be a Supreme Being.

[js1138]

Just right.