Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House

Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

[Last Visible Dog]

That line of argument tries to imply that scientific progress jerks back & forth on a whim, with no clear convergence on any kind of objective truth. (It's the same kind of vision that postmodernists have of knowledge, ironically.)

You are wrong. I am implying no such thing. If you wish to argue with a pretend creationist straw man don't address your arguments at me.

[RightWingNilla]

Are you now claiming that evolution explains life's origins?

Origin of species, not of life itself. I think the author is using incorrect wording. Either that or he does not understand the scope of evolution. I guess its possible since others have lumped in everything from the Big-Bang to Meg Ryan's hair in with evolution.

[FreeReign]

The sequential variation of flora and fauna throughout the fossil record is the scientific FACT of evolution. Darwinian natural selection is the THEORY of how the fact of evolution came about. Confusingly, the fact and theory are both called "evolution". Almost all of the people who are against the teaching of evolution object much more strongly to the fact of evolution than they do to the theory, because it's the fact that contradicts most creation myths. Because of the confusion between terms, they think that by finding flaws in the theory, they can overturn the fact. But they can't.

Well said.

[FreeReign]

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”

No one can actually prove objective truth, therefore everything considered true should instead be considered theory with a disclaimer attached. </appropriate tag>

[Dimensio]

The premise of EVERY evolutionist for evolution is that there is NO God.

Odd. I don't recall evolution theory addressing the existence of any gods, much less a specific "God". Perhaps you could point out where the theory makes such a claim?

[Kleon]

“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” I think the writer misuses the word "theory" here by striping it of its scientific meaning. In science, a hypothesis that has been tested and verified by sufficient amounts of data and gains widespread acceptance becomes a theory. Sometimes, it may take decades, or even centuries, for a theory to become a law.

[John H K]

Evolution actually has nothing to do with the origin of life.

I've tried a few times but it's esentially hopeless to explain this to creationidiots, who actually rarely, if ever, discuss evolution itself; they're actually talking/complaining about the origin of life.

Given how little we really know about the issue I personally don't see why the origin of life needs to be discussed at all in High School; evolution absolutely, positively has to be tought, without being watered down by creationidiocy.

[Dimensio]

Sometimes, it may take decades, or even centuries, for a theory to become a law.

Theories and laws within science are two very different things. Theories never become law.

[Physicist]

Originally you put up the entire theory of evolution against the heliocentric nature of the solar system -- or so I interpreted your post, and perhaps I was mistaken in your intent -- and now you're talking about "animals changing over time" and the entire scope of planetary motion.

Apples to apples, fact to fact, theory to theory. There is no more doubt about the FACT of a heliocentric solar system (the sun is measured to be approximately at the center of the solar system) than there is about the FACT of evolution (the flora and fauna preserved in one stratum look substantially different from the flora and fauna in other, well-separated strata). There are some open questions about the THEORY of the heliocentric solar system (the planets move in an approximately central potential that is dominantly generated by the sun's mass), just as there are open questions about the THEORY of evolution (species change over time through the mechanism of variation plus natural selection). The two are exactly parallel.

Precisely, teach the theory, the good ideas, and make it clear what is solid and what is speculative.

And do you actually believe that they teach "problems with the heliocentric theory" in public schools? If not, should the state legislatures step in?

[Physicist]

How is that any more a gap in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric?

Because in the heliocentric model, we claim to know the specific structure of all the forces involved (namely, gravity). In the geocentric model, there are epicycles upon epicycles, but the mathematical details of the forces that cause the planets to move in those convoluted paths are unknown. Without those details, you can't say whether you'd expect the orbits to be stable or unstable.

For that matter, why is that even a gap at all? What would cause the orbits to be unstable?

The fact that the planets interact with each other via gravity. For example, every time we swing past Jupiter on the same side of the sun, we get a little tug, and our orbit gets distorted a little bit. Those distortions pile up over time, and eventually the planets kick each other out...at least, according to the computer simulations.

Obviously, planetary orbits are stable over the long term in the real solar system. Something keeps them stable, but there is no unanimity on what that something is. The problem is enormously complicated, and the answer, subtle.

[Kleon]

Theories and laws within science are two very different things. Theories never become law.

No, all laws begin as theories. Only after intense scrutiny and many years can a theory become a law.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" began as a hypothesis, was tested and became a theory. As the theory gained more acceptance, it became a law of physics.

[Dustbunny]

WOW.... Applauding the intelligence of the 96-0 vote.

Have always wondered why theory was being taught as fact.

Hope more states follow suit.

[Physicist]

What else have they got?

The bonfire.

[inquest]

Because in the heliocentric model, we claim to know the specific structure of all the forces involved (namely, gravity).

That's not true. The heliocentric model was quite well-developed before any coherent theory of gravity was put forth.

Those distortions pile up over time, and eventually the planets kick each other out...at least, according to the computer simulations.

Now that I agree is interesting. Still, however, it doesn't in any way call into question the heliocentric theory - that is, the explanation for planetary motion, particularly the epicycles, first articulated by Copernicus.

[Dimensio]

No, all laws begin as theories. Only after intense scrutiny and many years can a theory become a law.

No, laws are defined differently than theories. Theories are a general framework of -- for lack of a better term -- educated guesses that have been borne out through testing (that is, testing has yeilded results consistent with what the theories predict, and thus far the theories have not been falsified). Laws are a direct observation of consistency within the universe. The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain the phenomenon we know as gravity. The "law of gravity" is a specific mathematical formula that is used for calculating the effect of gravity.

[Physicist]

No, all laws begin as theories. Only after intense scrutiny and many years can a theory become a law.

Don't believe everything you heard in public school.

Laws are empirical relationships. Theories are conceptual models. Theories never become laws, and the two terms have nothing to do with the certainty or uncertainty of what they assert. Ampere's Law, for example, is known to fail under rather simple conditions, but a law it is, and ever shall be. The atomic theory of matter is known to be correct as the basis of chemistry, but a theory it is, and ever shall be.

[Physicist]

The heliocentric model was quite well-developed before any coherent theory of gravity was put forth.

I really can't see how that has anything to do with it. Our understanding is better now, so there should be fewer disagreements, right?

[RadioAstronomer]

Obviously, planetary orbits are stable over the long term in the real solar system. Something keeps them stable, but there is no unanimity on what that something is. The problem is enormously complicated, and the answer, subtle.

Agreed! :-)

There are still arguments about the Titius-Bode law and whether it's even a valid one. I happen to think it is. The coincidences are pretty big if not. However, the mechanisms are still not understood.

[RadioAstronomer]

Ya beat me to it :-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

The premise of EVERY evolutionist for evolution is that there is NO God.

Including the Pope?