Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House
Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

Posted on 02/27/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-310 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
When did we think the earth was flat?

It's the collective we, not you and me. You can substitute other theories like the sun revolving around the earth if flat-earth is bogging you down. The point is if we assume theories are fact we turn our minds off. Thinking should never be limited or based on assumptions of certitude. Assuming theories are facts is like howling at the moon - it might make you feel a little better but it does not accomplish much. BTW: I am pretty sure that is not really your "logic" - I was just pushing the point to illustrate a concept.

221 posted on 02/28/2004 9:11:46 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars

Maybe God was drunk waxing poetic at the time.

He ranks first among the works of God...

I guess He changed His mind ... I hope that doesn't happen often.

222 posted on 02/28/2004 9:13:01 AM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

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

Just a clarification: this is a widely held misunderstanding.

Scientific Theories NEVER become "Laws" because they are fundamentally different creatures: a scientific "law" is nothing more than statement of an observed relationship: "Bode's Law" describe's the observed spacing of planetary material in the solar system, for example. As such, they rest soley on empirical evidence, and can be overturned whenever a conflicting observation is made and verified.

Scientific "Theories" on the other hand are models having broad explanatory power over a range of phenomona. They not only fit the observed evidence (much as Laws do), but also must make useful predictions, which can be used as the basis of attempted falsification of the theory.

"Laws" lack the explanatory power of scientific theories: see Bode's Law as an example -- Bode simply tells us that the planetary material doubles in distance as we move for one to the next in the solar sytsem, but offers absolutely no explanation for this phenomonon.

223 posted on 02/28/2004 9:19:54 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
And why doesn't that bother people as much as schools teaching that the world's species descended from common ancestors over geological ages, showing how the species are interrelated, and moving on to the next topic?

We can observe the planetary motion - we cannot observe species descending from common ancestor because it is a theory that can never be observed or proved unless Mr. Peabody prefects the Way-Back machine.

224 posted on 02/28/2004 9:19:58 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs .

Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world. Some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees! From Are Dinosaurs In The Bible?

The problem is the majority of Dinosaurs weren't behemoths but human size or smaller so where are they listed in the Bible? Plus Dinos were a very diverse group with a Triceratops differing from a Tyrannosaurs equally if not more as much as a cow does from a lion so if they exsisted ancient people would have different names for them instead just groupping dinosaurs under the vague term of behemoth

Where are the Unicorns, cockatrices, And giant sons of God that go around inpregnating human females mentioned in the bible?

225 posted on 02/28/2004 9:27:43 AM PST by qam1 (Are Republicans the party of Reagan or the party of Bloomberg and Pataki?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
What you're saying is that the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of the heliocentric solar system can't overthrow the observed FACT that the solar system is heliocentric. I completely agree, and that's precisely why I brought it up. For exactly the same reason, the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of evolution can't overthrow the observed FACT that life on Earth has evolved.

I still have to wonder if you're comparing apples to apples. You seem to be saying that the theory of the heliocentric system is incomplete - that is, that there's something more to the mix than what the current theory describes. Are you saying the same thing about the theory of evolution, that there's apparently something more to evolution than modification by natural selection?

226 posted on 02/28/2004 9:28:56 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The point is if we assume theories are fact we turn our minds off.

Nonsense. Theories are what make it possible for us to think creatively. And we get nowhere if we're constantly wondering about the truth of our premises. If every time I get a discordant result, I consider the possibility that the atomic theory might not be correct, that perhaps electrons don't really exist, that maybe the Coulomb force law doesn't depend on the inverse second power of distance, etc., how far would I get? The answer is, nowhere.

227 posted on 02/28/2004 9:31:42 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
We can observe the planetary motion

Over what sort of timescale?

- we cannot observe species descending from common ancestor because it is a theory that can never be observed or proved

"We can't observe it because we can't observe it". Droll. Wrong, however. The fossil record is complete enough to reconstruct all of the major branches of the tree of life, and the picture it gives is getting more detailed all the time. Furthermore, we can observe evolution occurring in realtime. It is slow, but unmistakable.

228 posted on 02/28/2004 9:32:55 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The Oklahoma House passed a bill Monday that would require public school textbooks that discuss evolution to include a disclaimer stating that it is a controversial theory and not fact.

Someone sold the Okie legislators a Trojan horse.

229 posted on 02/28/2004 9:33:09 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
we cannot observe species descending from common ancestor

Sure we can. We can compare their genetic codes, and notice that they all diverge from an ancestral code by point mutations.

230 posted on 02/28/2004 9:33:21 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
Please don't refer to Oklahomans as ignorant.

Ignorant is as ignorant does.

231 posted on 02/28/2004 9:33:51 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Scientific Theories NEVER become "Laws" because they are fundamentally different creatures

And the really sad thing is I distinctly remember being "taught" in school that theories and laws are just steps along the same continuum. And this was a private school, no less. Science education in this country is definitely in major trouble.

232 posted on 02/28/2004 9:37:50 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You seem to be saying that the theory of the heliocentric system is incomplete - that is, that there's something more to the mix than what the current theory describes.

I don't believe it is incomplete, in the sense that I don't believe there is more at work than the known forces. What I'm saying is that our understanding of how those forces interoperate to produce the solar system we see is incomplete. But just because there are aspects of planetary motion we can't readily explain, it doesn't mean that there's anything more at work than gravity.

Are you saying the same thing about the theory of evolution, that there's apparently something more to evolution than modification by natural selection?

I don't believe that evolution is incomplete, in that I don't believe there is more at work in the origin of species than natural variation plus natural selection. What I'm saying is that our understanding of how those factors have interoperated to produce the species we see is incomplete. But just because there are aspects of biology we can't readily explain, it doesn't mean that there's anything more at work than Darwinism.

233 posted on 02/28/2004 9:45:43 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Someone sold the Okie legislators a Trojan horse.

It was bound to happen..... "Sooner" or later!

bada-bing, bada-boom!

234 posted on 02/28/2004 9:48:24 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Sure we can. We can compare their genetic codes, and notice that they all diverge from an ancestral code by point mutations.

Correction: we assume based on our current theories that genetic codes diverge from an ancestral code. We cannot observe this actually happening or duplicate it in the lab. We can actually observe planetary motion.

235 posted on 02/28/2004 9:49:34 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: inquest
And the really sad thing is I distinctly remember being "taught" in school that theories and laws are just steps along the same continuum.

Yes, I was taught the same thing in school. What amazes me is how tightly so many people cling to the notion, to the point where they'll tell a practicing scientist that he's wrong, and that he knows nothing about how science is done, when he tries to set them straight.

236 posted on 02/28/2004 9:50:09 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Nonsense. Theories are what make it possible for us to think creatively. And we get nowhere if we're constantly wondering about the truth of our premises. If every time I get a discordant result, I consider the possibility that the atomic theory might not be correct, that perhaps electrons don't really exist, that maybe the Coulomb force law doesn't depend on the inverse second power of distance, etc., how far would I get? The answer is, nowhere.

If one assumes theories are facts, theories will never be challenged and nobody will think outside the box. If you pretend theories are facts, you are not praticing science.

237 posted on 02/28/2004 9:52:10 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I will post a small write-up on Laplacean resonance here this afternoon.
238 posted on 02/28/2004 9:53:01 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
If you pretend theories are facts, you are not praticing science.

If you pretend magic is real, you aren't paying attention to the real world.

239 posted on 02/28/2004 9:54:10 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
If one assumes theories are facts, theories will never be challenged and nobody will think outside the box. If you pretend theories are facts, you are not praticing science.

How long you been doing science, LVD? I'd just like to know how seriously to take your opinion.

240 posted on 02/28/2004 10:09:41 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-310 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson