Professor challenges evolution (Pittsburgh Professor's article in The New Anatomist)

Pittnews.com ^ | 02/09/2006 | NAN AMA SARFO

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Who told you I was a creationist?"

Your actions. Creationist/ID'er: same thing, different package.

[adorno]

You do realise that an explanation in science has to reach a high level of confidence and verification before it can be called a "theory", correct?

You do realize that some theories will forever remain theories because, ultimately, they can't be proven. Sort of like the 'global warming' theory.

Evolution has been a 'theory' for what... more than 150 years? My guess is that it will be a theory for another 300 years or until people give up on it or new and improved theories are developed.

[ThinkDifferent]

Are you sure that "idiotarian" is a word?

I believe it was coined by Little Green Footballs. Michael Moore is the archetype. See also the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You do realize that some theories will forever remain theories because, ultimately, they can't be proven."

You do realize that all theories remain theories and don't move up to a higher level, and don't get proven, right? :)

[Dimensio]

You do realize that some theories will forever remain theories because, ultimately, they can't be proven.

All theories will either remain theories or be discarded. There is nothing higher than "theory". Nothing in science is ever "proven".

Evolution has been a 'theory' for what... more than 150 years?

What else would it become?

[orionblamblam]

> Are you sure that "idiotarian" is a word?

Insofar as it is used with some regularity, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotarian

"The term idiotarian was coined by Charles Johnson (webmaster of the Little Green Footballs warblog) on January 5, 2002, in response to a comment on the weblog Instapundit.[1] It is an apparent hybrid of 'idiot' and the '-tarian' ending common to words denoting political ideologies such as libertarian or communitarian."

"The term was initially directed against "idiotic" behavior by figures on both the political left and right,[2] however, it has come to be associated much more strongly with its use by warbloggers, right-leaning, and libertarian bloggers in criticism of the political left. It is sometimes employed in the service of ad hominem rhetorical attacks, but may also be used as a pejorative political slogan or label, and the meaning and usage of the term itself is a subject of politicized debate."


Since anti-evolutionists and other anti-science types are working, knowingly or unknowingly, in the service of the political Left... idiotarian is a good descriptor.

> I went to dictionary.com, I couldn't find the word.

They don't have "Islamofascist," either. The English language evolves rapidly, as do many organisms. Sometimes change is so fast that good records are often not kept. Such is life.

[ahayes]

If I were still a young earth creationist, I would be shoving you into a closet saying, "Get off my side, you're making it look stupid."

Since I'm no longer a young earth creationists I'll just bang my head on the wall and then laugh.

[orionblamblam]

> Evolution has been a 'theory' for what... more than 150 years?

So? Aerodynamic theory has been around for more than a century, and the fact remains that planes stay airborne.

Evolution is a theory. "Life evolves" is a fact.

Relativity is a theory. "Atom bombs go BLAM" is a fact.

[Snowbelt Man]

I love the word. I just totally disagree with your conclusion regarding who is in cahoots with the political left. I'd love to see an honest exit poll of Bush vs. Kerry voters and what percentage of each believe in evolution. I'm sure that we would find that a much greater percentage of idiotarians believe in evolution. C'mon now. You know that this is true. And please don't call me a liar because I won't actually go out and do the poll.

[orionblamblam]

> I just totally disagree with your conclusion regarding who is in cahoots with the political left.

That's why I said "knowingly or unknowingly." Lenin, I believe, coined the term "useful idiots" to describe those who aided his cause without necessarily knowing it or wanting to do so. We're seeign the result of this in Europe with respect to the Islamofascists... and we're seeing it in the US with respect to the anti-science types. By casting Republicans as the party that refuses to leave the Dark Ages, they aid the cause of the Left.

Evolution happens. The Earth is round. The sun will come up tomorrow. Denial of these basic facts, IMO, marks one as ignorant or a Leftist operative.

[connectthedots]

So are you still insisting that you never predicted a verdict in the Dover trial?

I did predict a narrow verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

I also said on a number of occasions that one can never be sure how a trial will end because a judge can choose to ignore the law.

If you insist I never made such comments; you are the one who is a liar.

[adorno]

All theories will either remain theories or be discarded. There is nothing higher than "theory". Nothing in science is ever "proven".

Beyond theory there might be a 'law' of nature. But, you stated it yourself, a theory can be discarded. Why would that be? Could it be that new explanations to observations were found, or measurements proved a theory to actually be wrong? If a theory stands a chance of being proved wrong, then it merits to be called a 'speculation' rather than a theory.

And, since I'm not very religious, if at all, I can't rightly consider myself a creationist. And, since I haven't observed and 'intelligent designer' at work, I can't consider myself and "ID" advocate either.

I was at one time a heavy believer of evolution theory. It made a lot of sense. But, as science progresses and the complexities of life are discovered, I become more and more skeptical of the theory and convinced that 'evolution theory' will never answer the questions of life and how it started and how it really 'evolved', if it evolved at all.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Beyond theory there might be a 'law' of nature."

There might be, but there isn't.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

When you make a claim that is so clearly demonstratably false, what else should I call you?

A 'politician'?

A 'journalist'?

A 'lawyer'?

Just kidding...

[adorno]

Evolution is a theory. "Life evolves" is a fact.

So, then, it the 'theory of evolution' is proven fact, why is it still being discussed and challenged? A fact can't be challenged.

A plane can fly? Of course.

Ha anybody actually observed a species, like a large animal, evolve into something which might rightfully be called something else? That there are similarities within the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, does not mean that one directly evolved from the other.

[Dimensio]

I did predict a narrow verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

No, you predicted a very narrow verdict "in favor of the defendants". And then later you denied making such a prediction, continuing your denial even after I referenced your previous post on the matter, claiming that you "did not predict who would win". So if you did not predict who would win, what did you mean when you said "in favor of the defenants"?

So first you predicted a very narrow ruling "in favor of the defendants". Then you denied predicting a verdict in favor of the defendants, and now you claim to have predicted a narrow veridct in favor of the plaintiffs.

Should anyone wonder why I call you a liar?

[ThinkDifferent]

But, you stated it yourself, a theory can be discarded. Why would that be? Could it be that new explanations to observations were found, or measurements proved a theory to actually be wrong?

Exactly.

If a theory stands a chance of being proved wrong, then it merits to be called a 'speculation' rather than a theory.

Utterly and completely wrong. By that standard there is nothing in science that isn't "speculation".

[Dimensio]

Beyond theory there might be a 'law' of nature.

No, "laws" are not "beyond" theories. Laws are a different kind of statement, fitting a different purpose.

But, you stated it yourself, a theory can be discarded. Why would that be?

Typically a theory is discarded when observations occur that directly contradict implications made by the theory.

Could it be that new explanations to observations were found, or measurements proved a theory to actually be wrong?

Yes, this would be grounds for discarding a theory. On the other hand, sometimes the theory might be "wrong" on minor details, but not proven wrong at what it fundamentally explains. In those cases the theory is adjusted to take into account the new information.

If a theory stands a chance of being proved wrong, then it merits to be called a 'speculation' rather than a theory.

By your reasoning, everything in science is "speculation" because absolutely everything in all of science is subject to change should contrary observations occur.

[adorno]

"Beyond theory there might be a 'law' of nature."

There might be, but there isn't.

Oh, I don't know. I seem to recall that there is something called the 'Law of Gravity". Did that start out as a theory?

And, before you tell me that that is a physical law and it doesn't matter or compare, I would suggest to you that gravity has a lot to do with how nature developed in our world. It would be an integral of 'evolution theory' if it was really factual.

[adorno]

By your reasoning, everything in science is "speculation" because absolutely everything in all of science is subject to change should contrary observations occur.

Not all theories are as flaky as 'evolution'.