Posted on 01/14/2005 9:21:24 AM PST by Without Barbarians
From the article about this news story:
My personal feelings aside, this latest frenzy over evolution is schools is equally dumb. Here’s what the sticker says:Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
This is factually correct. Evolution is a theory. The bones are facts, the concept that explains them and relates bones from different times is the theory. Evolution isn’t a fact any more than the law of gravity, which has freqently been revised and rewritten. That’s okay, because pretty much all of the rest of science is theory too.
Frankly, the sticker should replace “Evolution is a theory, not a fact,” with “Every explanation you will ever hear about anything is a theory and not a fact". Because that’s the truth.
And all you idiots with Darwin stickers on the back of your car should know that the modern theory of evolution has discarded nearly all of Darwin’s orginal theories. So get that stupid thing off your car before I take an arc welder to it.
I can’t really understand how the judge views that sticker as an establishment of religion. In fact, in suggesting that “the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism” the judge makes a monumental error. Creationism is not an alternate theory, because it isn’t a theory. Is creationism verifiable? Falsifiable? What form could any evidence that creationism is wrong take? Creationism is religion - a belief system that exists in the absence of evidence, and always relies on at least one leap of faith....
There's more there, but you get the gist.
One observes an apple fall from to the earth. An apple falls to the earth every time it is dropped and wherever it is tried. Whatever you call that thing that explains why that observation occurs is a law. It would be absurd to call that thing a theory, because you observe
One can see the remains of living things in the fossil record, but one cannot see them come into being. One has an idea of how they come into being, but one cannot create or replicate the conditons in order for one to observe the phenomenon take place. Hence, one does not really know how life comes into being. One can only theorize.
So are you trying to suggest that gravity is merely a theory? Your notions are too absurd to discuss. Adios.
It is "just a theory". Why is this so hard to understand?
And fossils all appear to change over time, there have never been exceptions to this rule. I.E. "Modern" fossils are NEVER found in locations where less modern fossils are. This is a bit harder to "prove" to the dubius than the apple falling, only one falling apple being enough to demonstrate the point. But after litterally millions of fossils have been collected from all over the world, the evidence of life changing, "Evolving", over time always holds.
There are two meanings of word "Evolution". The FACT that evolution happened is proven well enough to be considered beyond doubt among those who have seriously studied the subject. Then there is Evolution THEORY, which is the method that Evolution operates. This is what Darwin proposed by his "survival of the fittest" method. The details of this are still being worked out, but absolutely none of those details contradict the evidence that Evolution indeed happened.
My daughter studies Music THEORY in college. There is no doubt that Music exists. But the study of how music works is called Music Theory.
The FACT of Gravity you don't doubt. But the THEORY of how Gravity operates is actually quite more in doubt than the THEORY of how Evolution operates.
I still want to know which "religion" was established here.
As interpreted by this type of judge. I was only pointing out the inconsistency in his decision.
"You mean they have recorded proof that a certain species of animal (or plant) evolved (or changed) from one state to another?"
Best evidence are ring species, named as such because they are distributed in a ring like pattern around some geographical feature (such as a mountain range).
One example are a species of salamander on the west coast of the US that surround a valley. Each salamander can interbreed with its neighbours except at the southern point where the ring joins. By then the salamanders have diverged so far genetically that they can no longer interbreed. If the intermediates didn't exist they would be classified as different species.
Laugh is on you because he is right.
Nonsense. Despite your beliefs, the claim that most of Darwin's theories are have been rejected (by biolgists) is absurd.
First, Eevidence of fossils with increasing complexity at different levels is not proof that evolution is a fact. Second, your definition of what constitutes a "theory" is a specious attempt to suggest that evolution is a "fact." True, music theory explains how music works. but your analogy does not hold. I can hear music. Music can be played. It can be heard whenever a child bangs a piano. You cannot observe life being created out of nothing. You cannot replicate it in a laboratory. The theory of evolution does not explain how "evolution" works. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain origins.
OMG, where to start...
"First, Eevidence of fossils with increasing complexity at different levels is not proof that evolution is a fact."
What about the fields other than paleontology that support evolution? Also, what qualifies your opinion on what is science that would make us believe you over the people with years of education and a lifetime devoted to the study of the subject? I would never have the nerve to say something is science or not based on nothing other than a hunch, when the entire scientific community has already made their decision on the subject.
"Second, your definition of what constitutes a "theory" is a specious attempt to suggest that evolution is a "fact." "
Open any basic science textbook, or go visit any science website (AiG is NOT a science website) and read what a 'law' and 'theory' are in science.
I know you won't go look it up for yourself, so here you go:
You slam me for failing to provide where I get my information, but you provided some definitions and did not indicate where you got your information. But no matter. According to the definitions you provided evolution is neither a theory or a law.
It cannot be a "law" because it is not observable, obvious or undeniable. Evolution is not a theory, according to your definition, because it is not a testable explanation of how a phenomenon works.
So, if it is neither a theory or a law, hotshot, what is it and why should anyone care about it?
And tell me where you get your information next time.
"You slam me for failing to provide where I get my information, but you provided some definitions and did not indicate where you got your information. "
I didn't post a reference because I was posting something you should have been taught in gradeschool science class! But here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-36163_What_is_the_difference_between_Theory_and_Law?.html
The second link to a publication by the National Academy of Sciences answers your other questions about evolution being called a 'law' or 'theory.' Note, this is not some partisan organization that supports evolution, this is the NAS, the most prestigious science institution in the US. Not just for evolution, all sciences.
Regardless, you don't know the difference between a theory in science and a theory in common conversation, but you are going to argue with the entire scientific community that evolution is not science?
The "prestigious" and "nonpartisan" NAS supports evolution. Boy, that sure is persuasive.
So evolution is neither a theory or a law. It is "science." LOL!
One thing that is unagruable and clear: you are a pompous arogant boob. To you evolution is neither theory, law or science: it is your religion.
I really don't give a flip about what the bloomin' NAS NASA or the whole "scientific community" think about evolution. At one time the whole "scientific community" thought that black folks were a subspecies of humans and that malaria was caused by "bad air." The scientific community in Germany believed that Slavs were inferior to Aryans. So much for science and scientists.
Maybe I didn't learn alot in grade school, Bozo, but I learned that no scientific organization is unbiased and nonpartisan.
Furthermore, I certainly don't give a flip about what you think about me or my thoughts. I do think that you should shove off and take your frickin' materialistic godless communist humanism with you.
So Adios, Frenchie. Go away and comfort yourself with the thought that you are so much more educated and sophisticated than the pea-brained cave-dwellers that dare to challenge your "scientific" orthodoxy.
So you admit he won the argument then?
I am not admitting that he won anything. To suggest, as Frenchie said, that something is science because scientists say so, is patently absurd. Frenchie puts his trust in scientists. I cannot do so. Of course, Frenchie and probably you, will call me an idiot for doing so. I frankly don't care.
BTW, Welcome to Free Republic, newbie.
Who do you think should define science then? Should we have a democratic vote?
If I'm not willing to discuss this matter any further with Frenchie, why should I be willing to discuss this matter with you? Adios.
So you admit he won the argument then?
Ad nauseum
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.