Replies

I seem to be stuck to the tar baby again. This is a very strange thing -- we're actually on the same side of the debate -- i.e. I'm an adherent of the ToE. I've also been an educator and think it is a huge mistake to try to keep opposing views out of the classroom -- no matter how lacking they may be. Scientists cannot be trained by memorization of approved "truths" and indoctrination into certain world views -- they have to have to learn how to "do" science.

Also, if you're going to slag your opponents for being "unscientific" -- then you had better actually be using scientific language, and following the scientific method.

With respect -- the definition of theory that Coyoteman posted is bogus. It's worse than a "layman definition" -- it's wrong. Theories can be based either on deductive or inductive reasoning. Here's a definition from Answers.com (just the parts that pertain to this discussion)

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

A lot of science is done through the inductive approach -- simply making a bunch of observations; then creating a tentative theory (conjecture) that seems to explain the observations. Makes sense doesn't it? You have to start somewhere. The value of such a theory lies in the number of testable hypothesis that it can generate. These hypothesis are tested -- and, the theory changed, if necessary.

Please note that this is exactly how the Theory of Evolution was created. Darwin collected samples and made observations -- then he proposed a tentative theory. The theory generated many testable hypothesis and has so far survived all the tests.

If the theory survives the testing, we can say that it "has not yet been disproven". This is no trifling matter -- it is the very essence of the scientific method. If you're going to try to convince people of the superiority of the ToE on the basis of "science"; then you had better actually be using the scientific method or you will not have any credibility. There are a lot of good sites about the philosophy of science on the Web -- here's a brief introductory one: http://www.philosopher.org.uk/sci.htm BTW, do not go to Wikipedia for this -- a lot of what they have on the subject is crap.

Please take this in the spirit in which I offered it -- we agree on the main point; I'm just trying to make your arguments better. l