Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[greekguy]

Say, what if there are conflicting Scientific theories? Evolution and Creation both make completely unprovable assumptions.

Creation: There is a god or a divine influence. He/She directly influenced the creation of everything. Including the world & the kinds of animals as they are today, without macro-evolution.

Evolution: Neither a god nor a divine influence had an influence on the universe. Everything happened via a combination chance and natural selection.

note: I always list in alphabetical order, its just a habit. I do not necessarily favor one over the other.

Both of the theories, after making their (completely unprovable) assumptions, interpret (based on their assumptions, and evidence) what the pieces of evidence mean.

have you ever heard of God setting up the process of Evolution and letting things evolve over millions of years without direct influence? probably not, seeing as you've got Evolution and creationism defined so absolutely.

 

[Brighteye]

Say, what if there are conflicting Scientific theories? Evolution and Creation both make completely unprovable assumptions.

Creation: There is a god or a divine influence. He/She directly influenced the creation of everything. Including the world & the kinds of animals as they are today, without macro-evolution.

Evolution: Neither a god nor a divine influence had an influence on the universe. Everything happened via a combination chance and natural selection.

Both of the theories, after making their (completely unprovable) assumptions, interpret (based on their assumptions, and evidence) what the pieces of evidence mean.

One extrapolates from evidence and known facts about how the world works and has worked in our memory to time before our memory using simple logical deduction and justifiable assumptions.
The other creates an entirely new, unnecessary idea with no justifiability and no extrapolation to explain the situation without postulating an adequate mechanic (God 'magicked' it all into being).

Can you notice the difference? Lack of falsifiability in both cases does not mean equal probability of being true, or even equal justifiability. One is science and one is speculation.

 

[Perfection]

Evolution doesn't exhibit a lack of falsifiability, Brighteye. The fossil of a man in Precambrian strata or the discovery of a creature that mixes complex structural features of two now thought of as divergent groups would falsify evolution as we understand it.

 

[warpus]

Say, what if there are conflicting Scientific theories?

We only have one which explains the complexity of life on this planet. If there were more than one, you'd have a point!

Both of the theories, after making their (completely unprovable) assumptions, interpret (based on their assumptions, and evidence) what the pieces of evidence mean.

First of all, Creationism is not a valid theory. Second of all, TOE is completely falsifiable.

Name one assumption TOE makes that is not a negative (ie. this doesn't, or this isn't) that is unfalsifiable.

For example (something completely unrelated to creation and evolution):

A candle of unknown make and origin burns at the rate of 1cm/hour.

How long has the candle been burning (don't account for all the previous times it may/could have been lit)?

You would have to assume how long the candle was before the current time it was lit.

One could say that it has been burning a long time, which could account for the large amount of wax collected at the bottom. (assuming all the wax at the bottom is not from this time it was lit)
Another could say that it has been burning a short time, because the wax at the bottom could be from previous times. (assuming only a small amount of the wax at the bottom is from this time it was lit)

They could argue forever, and never convince one another.

Yes, and somebody could say: "It hasn't burned at all. God created it like that."

Depends on the solidity of the theory. Evolution isn't as strong a theory as most.

It is quite solid, actually. If it wasn't, modern biology would not rest on its shoulders as easily as it does!

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is. I mentioned it was stupid immediately when I first heard of it, because of the logical reasoning on how people who are missing limbs due to injuries can make perfectly normal kids.

Wait, they seriously teach that ****? Good lord I was joking!

 

[Bill3000]

Wait, they seriously teach that ****? Good lord I was joking!

Only as an aside, mostly in a sentence or two about the history of science.

 

[garric]

Darwinists scared of testing the sacred theory like always. Not that I appove of Creationism, but some of the responses here are just hillarious.

 

[warpus]

Darwinists scared of testing the sacred theory like always. Not that I appove of Creationism, but some of the responses here are just hillarious.

Yes, like the one you just wrote

 

[Perfection]

Darwinists scared of testing the sacred theory like always.

Evolution has already been succesfuly tested repeatedly, there's no scientific debate. Biologists don't view countering creationism as a scientific debate, rather a PR struggle.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Wait, they seriously teach that ****? Good lord I was joking!

In a that's-what-some-people-believed-but-it's-obviously-wrong sense.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I suppose one of the advantages of growing up in a blue state is that I never had to deal with this crap. There's nothing I can add that hasn't been said already. Evolution is supported by science, creationism is supported by mysticism. End of story.

 

[Atlas14]

This Creationism crap should be ridiculed in school. They should teach a brief history of it and blow it to pieces.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Link


Thoughts?

If he really wanted to introduce a challenge to evolution, and believed his material was provocative enough, he should've presented it to a scientific journal for peer review, and get published. Or, he could present it to the appropriate scientific societies in an effort to present convincing evidence to challenge evolution. Instead, he wanted it presented to children, who don't know any better. That sounds more like religious indoctrination than a scientific presentation.

 

[mdwh]

Wouldn't it be great if science teachers only taught science, but never speculation. (such as origins - see my siggy) I don't care if creation and evolution are taught as speculations (and theories), but never should they cross the border and call either of them a fact.

Firstly, evolution is a fact and a theory: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html .

It is considered a fact that we developed from simpler lifeforms. The mechanism by which this happened is theory.

I don't know if you intended to put creationism and evolution on the same level, but this isn't anywhere near the case. Evolution is a fact and a theory, whilst creationism is mere philosophical conjecture, at best.

 

[Bluemofia]

Firstly, evolution is a fact and a theory: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html .

It is considered a fact that we developed from simpler lifeforms. The mechanism by which this happened is theory.

I don't know if you intended to put creationism and evolution on the same level, but this isn't anywhere near the case. Evolution is a fact and a theory, whilst creationism is mere philosophical conjecture, at best.

I support you in the way that Evolution is true, but the way you put it saying it's fact is what annoys me.

The only thing you know for sure, is your own existence. (I think, therefore I am) You can never be 100% sure about anything, as most people thought they were 100% sure that the sun went around the Earth 6000 years ago. They thought the Earth was stationary, as it does not appear to move. Your senses do not always tell the truth, and common sense is not always right.

But Evolution is well supported enough to be considered for normal purposes to be fact.

 

[mdwh]

I support you in the way that Evolution is true, but the way you put it saying it's fact is what annoys me.

The only thing you know for sure, is your own existence. (I think, therefore I am) You can never be 100% sure about anything, as most people thought they were 100% sure that the sun went around the Earth 6000 years ago. They thought the Earth was stationary, as it does not appear to move. Your senses do not always tell the truth, and common sense is not always right.

But Evolution is well supported enough to be considered for normal purposes to be fact.

Yes, that last bit is what I mean. If we take the point of view that nothing can be 100% proven, then the word "fact" becomes meaningless. So clearly, I'm not using "fact" in that sense. I mean, do you get annoyed by anyone who says the word "fact" - should we strike it from our dictionaries?

It's a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that apples fall to the ground. "Theory" is something like the theory of gravitation which models how and why apples fall to the ground.

Creationism isn't a fact (in that there is no evidence to support it), nor is it a theory.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Philosophical conjecture at best... that's a very nice way of putting it.

 

[Bluemofia]

Yes, that last bit is what I mean. If we take the point of view that nothing can be 100% proven, then the word "fact" becomes meaningless. So clearly, I'm not using "fact" in that sense. I mean, do you get annoyed by anyone who says the word "fact" - should we strike it from our dictionaries?

It's a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that apples fall to the ground. "Theory" is something like the theory of gravitation which models how and why apples fall to the ground.

Creationism isn't a fact (in that there is no evidence to support it), nor is it a theory.

I got a bit annoyed by the tone of your post. That was all.

My personal tactic against people who use the "It's just a theory" tactic, is often by responding with "Is Newton's Theory of Gravity just a theory? Or is Germ Theory just a theory? Or what about the Theory of Relativity?".

You can't fight illogic with logic...

 

[Antilogic]

I'm really angered at the use of "Darwinism" in this thread. Or "Darwinian Evolution". The only time in science a theory is named after somebody is if they do not give it a name themselves. Therefore, if Darwin called it "Natural Selection", it's natural selection, people. It's the theory of evolution, not Darwinism--that's a made-up term to try and make evolution sound like religion.

It's all PR and trying to convince people to accept what scientific inquiry has indicated is a more-than-likely explanation for what is happened--to the best of human knowledge, evolution in some form or another accurately describes what has happened to life on this Earth over billions of years. Or, at least, it is correct enough to have testable predictive power, which is essentially all you need for a theory.

Note the indefinite terms and the lack of the word "fact". Facts are funny things in science...not exactly the same term that is used in the vernacular. There are some keen posters here who have realized this intellectual struggle and war of semantics (which, as far as I can tell, is the only point of the last few posts).

 

[Homie]

He told the BBC: "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.
"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.

That is SOOO true. Any history buffs here that think this sounds familiar? The professor's in the Middle Ages held Aristotle and the ancients in as high a regard as modern people hold Darwin and Evolution. And if you said that Aristotle and or any of the other ancient authorities in science were wrong, then the professor's at the universities might put pressure on the church to excommunicate you. History repeats itself yet again, fortunately though, you won't be imprisoned or killed for your ideas anymore, you'll just be ridiculed.