Charles Darwin's unfunny joke

World Net Daily ^ | jan 27, 2007 | Pat Boone

[si tacuissem]

Perhaps, but I think it (evolution) fails the test of science on at least two marks:
1) it is not subject to the scientific method since it cannot be tested empirically (you cannot design an experiment to test evolution using control and experimental groups),
2) it cannot be proven false. Scientists generally like (require?) their theories to be falsifiable, otherwise they cannot be tested.

Do you think that astronomy is science? It fails the very same marks. Frankly, as there is no lab big enough to simulate an universe - or earth's history, we have to look at the "experiments" which are happening around us - that's the way astronomy and evolution theorists do their sciences.

[mdmathis6]

I have no problems with the concept of evolution as a science per se....but its claims have been perverted and misused by politicians in the social policy arena, being used to undermine faith and being used to justify the horrors of Nazi racism and communist slaughters of the 20th century.

Pure science and its practitioners would avoid the use of science to justify questional political policy.

[mdmathis6]

So you "built your barn" and have stored the "wealth" of your certainty in it? So you are ready to live the rest of your live with ease and comfort in the certainty of your knowledge?

[EternalVigilance]

The fact is, there is nothing to debate.

Ah, the certitude of the cult of Darwin.

[RadioAstronomer]

Pat Boone hits it out of the ballpark.

ROTFLMAO!

[RadioAstronomer]

Absoluteley. Once the Sociialists indoctrinate our youth with the vile lie of evoloution, our freedoms are next. Gun grabbing, Darwinism, porn, it's all part of the same thing, meant to weaken our Constitutional society.

Hey, you forgot to add fluoride in the water, vaccinations are spawns of Satan, etc.

General Ripper, is this you?

[blowfish]

Pat Boone hits it out of the ballpark spouts off about a subject he is completely ignorant of.

Fixed it for ya.

[RadioAstronomer]

If a theory is something scientifically proven what is theoretical about it? You may be comfusing 'theory' with 'law.'

Let me post my own 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.

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".

[darth]

I am conservative...somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, and I find that the preponderance of evidence supports the theory of evolution. Few scientific theories have such widespread evidence supporting them. Many other conservatives think likewise. Some commies may believe that Darwin was right; so what? Commies also believe in Newton's laws of motion. Don't confuse scientific, religious, and political views. I know conservative atheists and leftist Christians. I always feel insulted when someone insists that I must be a leftist if I don't accept THEIR religious beliefs instead of my own. This kind of attack on fellow conservative is divisive.

[grey_whiskers]

Try this:

Pat Boone hits it out of the ballpark hits a sharp foul ball painfully off of his own foot.

"Shut up and sing" --?

Maybe not.

Full Disclosure: Looking at that photo, I just realized how much Mr. Boone resembles Roger Moore:

Cheers!

[doc30]

Your posts have proven you really don't understand science, its history, its content or how it works at all. Good day.

[RightWhale]

Amazing that posters still fall for this in all seriousness. The answer is that the evidence was eaten.

[doc30]

For that subject, I am willfully ignorant. At least I'm proudly willing to admit it :)

[doc30]

Hi RA! HC is an interesting character. I checked out his homepage and it links to a website that essentially says that if it can't be done under controlled laboratory conditions reproducibly, it's not science. It even mentions cosmology, astronomy, geology and archeology as examples of not being science.

[Stultis]

Pat Boone hits it out of the ballpark.

So he's moved on from stealing royalties from musicians with real talent to being an expert in biology. Yeah, that makes sense I suppose, in a "Pat Boone / Wing-Nut Daily" sort of way.

[Apparatchik]

Man, nothing like an old-fashioned evolution debate to bring out the paranoid whack-jobs.

I love it when the references to Communism, gun-grabbing and pornography (!) start. Takes me back to the 50's...

Is is possible to be a conservative and still see the merit in the theory of evolution? Or do I have to check my rationality at the door?

[DaGman]

A science lesson from Pat Boone. Just like a lesson on international policy from Sean Penn.

[Stultis]

So, you'd rather listen to corrupt scientists more interested in getting grant money than getting at the truth??? How odd.

The grant money going to biomedical science outweighs that going to evolutionary studies by, oh, being very conservative, probably a factor of 50,0000 or so. (Not to mention that biomed research often has a profit motive, or that 99% of scientific fraud occurs in the biomed fields.)

So of course you'd never feed all that, what did you call it?, corruption?, by actually going to a doctor or seeking medical treatment. Right?

[Stultis]

In themselves, they prove nothing at all.

Yeah. That's true, however, of ALL facts, "in themselves". Facts simply are what they are. They only have significance in the light of some theory about them, as to how they confirm, or contradict, the empirical implications of the theory.

Your complaint (if taken seriously) amounts to intellectual nihilism, a denial that scientific theories are testable.

[Parawan]

I have read 'Origin of Species' and found it compelling.