Just a theory: Evolution is a scientific reality.

[HokeyReligions]

It is not cut and paste. It is from a variety of different articles and books on the subject which I read and found pertinent information to illustrate the point I was making. Some of the sentences are verbatim from bits and pieces of articles, However, most of it stems from my own opinions, observations and views. The continum illustration is a cut-n-paste example.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Hypothesis is a conclusion, whereas Theory covers ideas, provable and nonprovable science, conjecture, assumption, and prior conclusions which leads to a new conclusion—or hypothesis. They are almost identical actually. It is a circular reference.

Hokey, gravity is not a hyptohesis. Germ theory is not a hypothesis. Ttheories are conclusions, whereas hypotheses are not. To continue to say that those definitions are one in the same is a deliberate distortion of the truth.

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Fine, teach Creationism in literature, philsophy, or religion classes.

The fundamentals of science should be taught in science class – but there is room to teach the theory of creationism (not specific religions) in sociology class.

That is what I've been saying all along, by the way. My entire post was a reaction to the Christian Right's (successful!) attempt to get psuedoscience taught in science classrooms.

 

I appreciate your contiuum, and I think I fall somewhere between Theistic Evolutionism and Methodological Materialistic Evolutionism--but I think Progressive Evolutionists and Evolutionary Creationists are in varying degrees of denial.

 

I think, after putting as much work into it as you have, you're able to agree with my position--that Creationism doesn't belong in science classrooms. There is no scientific controversy, and 99% of life scientists do not disagree with modern evolutionary theories. The controversy is a political one, between people who accept

science and those who do not. Teach it in a class that addresses political controversy.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Hokey, gravity is not a hyptohesis. Germ theory is not a hypothesis. Ttheories are conclusions, whereas hypotheses are not. To continue to say that those definitions are one in the same is a deliberate distortion of the truth.

 

Theory

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

 

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

 

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

 

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

 

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

hy•poth•e•sis

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

1. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

 

2. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

 

Entry: hypothesis

Function: noun

Definition: theory

Synonyms: antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution, axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data, deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground, guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal, proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point, suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem, thesis

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)

 

 

 

Entry: theory

Function: noun

Definition: belief

Synonyms: approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot, speculation, stab, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)

 

 

 

 

Fine, teach Creationism in literature, philsophy, or religion classes.

Um, DUH! This is what I have been saying all along!!!!!

 

Creationism doesn't belong in science classrooms.

I NEVER said it did!!!

[dyermaker]

Hokey, this is ridiculous. Thesaurus results are highly contextual, and primarily based on usage. I would consider you an acquaintance. Roget's New American Thesaurus lists "intimacy" as a synonym for acquaintance. We are not, as far as I can recall, intimate. Additionally, many people, primarily Creationists, will use the word 'theory' to imply a hypothesis in an attempt to put Creationism on an equal footing with Darwinism.

 

Would you say Gravity is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is untested. Are you familiar with the scientific method? A hypothesis is a guess made before experimentation is done. Evolution is not a hypothesis, and although hypothesis might mean something else in certain contexts, in the context of science it is totally irresponsible to equate 'hypothesis' with 'theory'.

 

As for teaching religious opinions in other classes, I'm not concerned with that at all, and my concerns have always been directed at the VERY REAL right-wing psuedoscientists trying to push christian doctrine in science classrooms.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Hokey, this is ridiculous. Thesaurus results are highly contextual, and primarily based on usage. I would consider you an acquaintance. Roget's New American Thesaurus lists "intimacy" as a synonym for acquaintance. We are not, as far as I can recall, intimate. Additionally, many people, primarily Creationists, will use the word 'theory' to imply a hypothesis in an attempt to put Creationism on an equal footing with Darwinism.

 

Would you say Gravity is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is untested. Are you familiar with the scientific method? A hypothesis is a guess made before experimentation is done. Evolution is not a hypothesis, and although hypothesis might mean something else in certain contexts, in the context of science it is totally irresponsible to equate 'hypothesis' with 'theory'.

 

As for teaching religious opinions in other classes, I'm not concerned with that at all, and my concerns have always been directed at the VERY REAL right-wing psuedoscientists trying to push christian doctrine in science classrooms.

 

Dyer - we will never agree. I don't buy your proof -- it's not enough to satisfy me. You might have a stopping point where you say "This is it, this is what I believe as fact" but that doesn't make it everyone's stopping point. I've taken a few science classes too and I do not agree with your definitions At All. Neither did my college profs in science or biology classes.

 

Science does not, can not, account for the supernatural. It also does not discount the possibility of the supernatural. A hypothesis is an EDUCATED guess -- based on...

 

well, hell, whats the point. We don't agree.

[JohnR]

One of Hockey's theasaurus definitions fits quite well with the scientific definition of theory:

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

The theory of evolution is a collection of scientific explainations and ideas. The key is that all these explainations and ideas can be tested, potentially falsified (ie disproven) and can be, and in many cases have been, used to make accurate predictions. The theory of evolution has stood up to many challenges that could have potentially falsified it (results of genetic sequencing of species for example, and every fossil find could potentially falsify common descent).

 

Creationism came with a few predictions as baggage, for example geologists in the 17th and early 18th century predicted to find evidence of a global flood in the geological column due to their creationist beliefs, but no evidence was find. A global flood was falsified.

 

Some more modern attempts have been made by Creationists to create new and rather wild explainations of facts such as the fossil record and geological column, or rather to explain away the lack of evidence for a flood.

But these have not sucessfully been used to make any accurate predictions, and even worse do not present methods of potential falsification (ie not scientifically testable). For example one idea that the flood waters came from a huge water canopy over the Earth is an adequate explaination, but it is not supported by any empirical evidence, and no way to test and potentially falsify the idea. So it is essentially non-scientific. Creationism generally holds back from putting foward any predictions or testable ideas because it doesn't want to expose itself to critical analysis. Creationism is a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. Creationism does not belong in science classes.

[RowanRavyn]

Well put!!

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Dyer - we will never agree. I don't buy your proof -- it's not enough to satisfy me.

That's fine. Your approval is not neccessary, with every advancement there are always stragglers. The basic principles of evolutionary theory have enough scientific support to be taught alongside other scientific principles in science classrooms. Without evolution, biology is just natural history.

I've taken a few science classes too and I do not agree with your definitions At All. Neither did my college profs in science or biology classes.

Could you cite a post-scientific-revolution source that equates "hypothesis" with "theory"?

[UCFKevin]

The Bible said man was made in the image of God and women were made from the rib of man.

 

What further proof do you want? Evolution schmevolution. We exist because we just suddenly appeared, dammit! Like magic!

 

[Weird]

I believe that God created the universe, the world, life, etc and life has has evolved (I consiser it mostly mutation) since then. There is no denying evolution exists in certain ways but at the same time, I find it lame for people to think we came from a pile of goo billions of years ago and evovled from that inot what we are today.

 

There are so man things about humans that I think don't jive with that. If we justcame form inorganic chemcials then why do we have feelings? What purpose does it serve me to care about some stranger getting hit by a car yet when I read about some stories like that I get sad.

 

Also, the human body is a piece of crap in many ways. It makes more sense to me that God made this body to be the way it is than for this to be the best that evolution has given us. Many people who don't believe in God say "if there is a God then why aren't our bodies perfect, why isn't life perfect, etc" Simple to me...if our bodies were pefect, life was perfect, etc then what would we have to look forwad to when we leave our physical form? What would be the point of us livng if we didn't have to have any suffering or learn anything?

 

Oh and obviously God and the creation of the universe/life can't be proven in the lab. Humans would not live if they knew God existed simply because so many would go insane and everyone would be hesitant to do ANYTHING and that would totally screw up the whole thing of free will. Think about it...if you were proven tomorrow that God in fact existed you'd be asking for forgiveness every hour on the hour nd you'd totally change how your life was.

 

This of course is just my opinion and I used to not really believe in God not that long ago but I do now. Too mnay things IMO point to there being a God but again, I do know evolution exists in a way...I just think it compliments God creating everything.

[dyermaker]

Weird, thank you.

 

I think I'm beginning to understand the way people look at it. If one believes in God, they'll attribute to God what they can't attribute to anything else, due to a lack of understanding. In some ways, I'm okay with that, for as long as the general population (read: the people educating children) are open to the possibility of scientific advancement.

 

Originally posted by Weird

I find it lame for people to think we came from a pile of goo billions of years ago and evovled from that inot what we are today.

The Bible says we came from dirt. Dirt, goo, what's the difference in terms of evolutionary advancement? Certain elements of primordial ooze seem farfetched if you haven't studied it for long enough, but just the idea of it seeming more farfetched than what's described in the Bible is shocking to me. The people who wrote the Bible weren't scientists, they were storytellers. That's why there are two creation stories right next to each other, each saying different things.

 

You do raise some interesting questions about evolution. I'll look into them for you, to make sure my explanations are in line with modern science. Two things I think are important to note:

 

1. The 'grey area', the things that scientists are unsure of, are not taught to students as facts. The parts of evolutionary theory that are fact, however, are taught to students as fact, even elements of the theory that contradict fundamental creationism--such as the age of the Earth.

 

2. The arguments casting doubt on evolution in no way advance the belief of Creationism. It's an argument from ignorance, just because science cannot yet explain everything, in any field of science, in no way means that there is no explanation. In terms of science, the teaching of creationism offers nothing.

Oh and obviously God and the creation of the universe/life can't be proven in the lab. Humans would not live if they knew God existed simply because so many would go insane and everyone would be hesitant to do ANYTHING and that would totally screw up the whole thing of free will. Think about it...if you were proven tomorrow that God in fact existed you'd be asking for forgiveness every hour on the hour nd you'd totally change how your life was.

 

This of course is just my opinion and I used to not really believe in God not that long ago but I do now. Too mnay things IMO point to there being a God but again, I do know evolution exists in a way...I just think it compliments God creating everything.

Science and Religion have a funny relationship. When people don't understand something, they attribute it to God. At one point, most things were explained by "God wills it so." As science begins to explain things, the number of things that are attributed soley to God dwindles. Some theists are threatened by that.

[Moose]

Science and Religion have a funny relationship. When people don't understand something, they attribute it to God. At one point, most things were explained by "God wills it so." As science begins to explain things, the number of things that are attributed soley to God dwindles. Some theists are threatened by that.

 

Yes they sure do. I understand where you're coming from Dyer, always have. I read an old article in Popular Mechanics on how scientists are proving some of the Scriptures. Not proving them wrong, just offering theories on how some thing, "Could", of happened. The burning bush for example, scientist say that when Moses saw the burning bush, there, "could", of been a natural gas leak directly behind it that somehow ignited and caused a visual affect of a bush that's burning yet not consumed. Then they contribute the parting of the red sea to certain tide behaviors based on planetary alignment, and Lazuras' raising from the dead was actually a deep coma.....yada, yada.

 

These kind of theories are fine, and some of the ones I haven't mentioned are believable. One thing that you or any scientist out there can't fanthom is that God used all of these natural incidents with perfect timing and orchestrated them to serve His purposes.

 

During this thread, you bounced back and forth to God and science. It's easy to see how you think and what you feel is right. What is difficult for you though, I feel, is that you and many others can't put God above science.

[dyermaker]

I hope you can recognize that I have a giant prejudice against fundamentalism, without taking it personally. That may be too much to ask. I admire your conviction, and I think you're a good person.

 

I think that when you approach scripture fundamentally, you aren't 'putting God above science'. Your'e actually, in my opinion, debasing God, because you're trying to simplify him. I think that there's no 'rule' that God has to operate in picture-book-simplicity, and the more I pursue actual knowledge (ex; evolutionism) the more I appreciate the complexity of God's actions.

 

As for using science to prove a great flood, burning bush, parting sea, et cetera--You can if you wish, but whether or not those things actually happened are not important to me, personally. Understand that you and I are "in it" (religious) for different reasons.

[Moose]

I hope you can recognize that I have a giant prejudice against fundamentalism, without taking it personally. That may be too much to ask. I admire your conviction, and I think you're a good person.

 

Thanks? No really, I understand and no, I'm not taking it personally. That's something I've been trying to work on and I admit that I slip way too often and do take too many things as a personal attack. And I too believe you're a great person as well with one heckuva future. BTW, looking for job yet????

 

Your'e actually, in my opinion, debasing God, because you're trying to simplify him.

 

I don't think I'm trying to simplify Him. I'm just lazy.....I think I told you that before. That and I truly don't believe I could come close to fully understanding Him, or a lot of science for that matter. I'm sure if I applied myself and asked for help from people such as yourself I could grasp a lot of it, but I'm quickly becoming an old dog, and you know that cliche'.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

BTW, looking for job yet????

I make pizzas.