Is evolution a fact or theory?

[apocalypse]

While watching the classic "Cosmos", Carl Sagan makes the statement "evolution is a fact". Obviously, living creatures can change over time, this is a fact. Don’t drug-resistant bacteria and the silver fox constitute examples of evolution?

What I don't understand is the current Intelligent Design supporters stating that evolution is a theory. Do ID supporters mean that the evolution of man from ape is a theory? Yes, that's true, it's a theory, a very well substantiated theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Of course, ID supporters may want to call it "intelligent falling" as the website "The Onion" did in an article a while back. w w w.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Am I incorrect in believing evolution is a fact, or do I need to re-classify evolution as theory?

[tsg]

Species have evolved. That is a fact. We know this to be true because we have seen it. The explanation for how evolution works, that is, the Theory of Evolution, is a theory in the strictest scientific sense of the word.

When IDers say "evolution is just a theory", they are using an Equivocation Fallacy to equate the Theory of Evolution to supposition or conjecture and ignore the mountains of evidence that give it the status of scientific theory.

[toddjh]

When creationists try the "evolution is just a theory" gambit, just say that evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity and electricity are theories.

Jeremy

[goodgirlonhere]

I think I will ask my great great great grandkids if evolution exist the next time they go to a psychic....:cool:

[drkitten]

While watching the classic "Cosmos", Carl Sagan makes the statement "evolution is a fact". Obviously, living creatures can change over time, this is a fact. Don’t drug-resistant bacteria and the silver fox constitute examples of evolution?

Am I incorrect in believing evolution is a fact, or do I need to re-classify evolution as theory?


As you point out, this is a matter of the definition of the relevant words.

The "fact" of evolution -- that individual species change over time, or alternatively that the gene pool for a species changes over time -- is as incontrovertible as the "fact" that when I just dropped my pencil, it fell to the floor in such-and-such a trajectory.

The "theory" of evolution is a well-tested generalization of the observed facts about evolution that covers things both seen and unseen; we've seen drug-resistant bacteria and silver foxes, and we generalize from them to the origins of human beings from monkey-like protoprimates. In this regard, it's as incontrovertible as the "theory" that when I drop my coffee cup, it will fall to the floor in a trajectory as calculated by Newton's laws of motion, modified if necessary by relativistic corrections and local modifications such as air resistance.

Of course, most people would consider it, loosely speaking, a "fact" that my coffee cup will fall if dropped, even thought it's technically not been observed (otherwise my cup would be broken already) and so is merely a conjecture based on a well-tested set of evidence. No one would seriously entertain the idea that my cup will not fall, merely because no one has yet observed that particular cup falling when dropped at that particular time in that particular place. So the Theory of Evolution is an well-thought-out explanatory framework for the various factual evolution-events that we have observed, along with a lot of secondary evidence that are not actual evolution events.

In this sense, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation of a wide variety of phenomena. As the National Center for Science Education puts it, '[s]cience teachers, however, use scientific terminology, in which "theory" means a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts. In a physics class, students will learn that the theory of gravity explains such facts as the rate of acceleration of falling objects; in chemistry class, they learn that atomic theory explains the structure and behavior of elements and compounds;' No one with an ounce more sense than an onion would object to Dalton's "Atomic Theory" or "The Germ Theory of Disease" as "only a theory," and suggest that we bring back the classical four elements, or Galen's humours, as alternatives to be taught in class.

There's also, of course, an informal meaning of the word "theory," akin to "wild-assed guess." As in "Well, my theory of the crime is that the victim shot himself and then his wife hid the suicide note, but that's just a theory and we'll have to wait for the ballistics report to see if that holds up." Evolution is specifically not a "just a theory" in this weak sense.

[Belz...]

When creationists try the "evolution is just a theory" gambit, just say that evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity and electricity are theories.

Jeremy

They fail to say that evolution itself is a fact. It's the definition of its processes that's the theory.

[toddjh]

They fail to say that evolution itself is a fact. It's the definition of its processes that's the theory.

Call them on that, though, and you'll get bogged down in halfwitted ramblings about "microevolution" and how mutations always destroy genetic information -- meaningless stuff that sounds suitably scientific to the average person, and puts evolutionists on the defensive.

Better to come back with a short, accurate refutation of their primary point, and get the ball back in their court quickly.

Jeremy

[tsg]

When creationists try the "evolution is just a theory" gambit, just say that evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity and electricity are theories.

Jeremy
And completely fail to say that Intelligent Design is "just a theory" when they claim that it is a scientific theory, which it isn't.

Geez, this gets confusing...

[Psi Baba]

Here is what Talk-Origins has to say about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

A shorter answer to the same question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Also, see my sig.

[apocalypse]

Evolution is a fact, something I've understood and accepted since I was a youngin' and has never come to doubt in my mind.

I guess I'm trying to understand the ID'ers point of view when they refer to the "theory of evolution"? Evolution occurs and is a fact, but the "theory of evolution" is in question. What would their definition of the "theory of evolution" be?

I've come across some nice reads while looking into this, and I thought I post them for all to enjoy.

(sorry for the odd hyperlinks, I can't officially post hyperlinks until I have 15 posts, ughhh)

w w w.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
slate.msn.com/id/2127052/
slate.msn.com/id/2128238/entry/2128240/?nav=tap3
evolution.berkeley.edu/

[Schneibster]

Evolution is a fact; we have observed it. Popular examples include the evolution of a new species of mosquito in the London underground (subway). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory to explain the observed fact of evolution by postulating selection (reproduction before death vs. death before reproduction) due to environmental criteria, like availability of food and ability to obtain it, or ability to avoid predators.

[epepke]

While watching the classic "Cosmos", Carl Sagan makes the statement "evolution is a fact". Obviously, living creatures can change over time, this is a fact. Don’t drug-resistant bacteria and the silver fox constitute examples of evolution?

What I don't understand is the current Intelligent Design supporters stating that evolution is a theory. Do ID supporters mean that the evolution of man from ape is a theory? Yes, that's true, it's a theory, a very well substantiated theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Of course, ID supporters may want to call it "intelligent falling" as the website "The Onion" did in an article a while back. w w w.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Am I incorrect in believing evolution is a fact, or do I need to re-classify evolution as theory?

The answer is "yes." There is a fact called "evolution." There is a theory called "evolution." Actually, there are many theories called "evolution." Most of them have not stood the test of evidence.

[Iamme]

Evolution is a fact; we have observed it. Popular examples include the evolution of a new species of mosquito in the London underground (subway). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory to explain the observed fact of evolution by postulating selection (reproduction before death vs. death before reproduction) due to environmental criteria, like availability of food and ability to obtain it, or ability to avoid predators.

Religious theological scholars are bending a little. They now believe that a mosquito can change to anther type of mosquito. But they don't believe the giraffe and mosquito have a common ancestor. THAT is were the rub still exists.

[eri]

An important thing to remember about science is that any idea can be proven wrong. If there is no way to prove a theory wrong (for example, ID), it's not science. There is always the possibility that scientists are wrong. There are many things that could show our current understanding of evolution is flawed - a fully formed human skeleton inside a T-Rex, for example. But we've never found anything that would lead us to the conclusion that evolution on the whole is wrong.

That being said, evolution happened and happens. We have millions of pieces of evidence for it. But I can't think of anything off the top of my head that qualifies as a 'fact' and not a 'theory' in science. Everything is built on potentially falsifiable theories.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As usual, I shall mention Minsky's Theorem of Evolution:
The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Unless you can find a problem with the premises, evolution happens.

~~ Paul

[Freakshow]

Evolution is a fact, something I've understood and accepted since I was a youngin' and has never come to doubt in my mind.

I guess I'm trying to understand the ID'ers point of view when they refer to the "theory of evolution"? Evolution occurs and is a fact, but the "theory of evolution" is in question. What would their definition of the "theory of evolution" be?

I've come across some nice reads while looking into this, and I thought I post them for all to enjoy.

(sorry for the odd hyperlinks, I can't officially post hyperlinks until I have 15 posts, ughhh)

w w w.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
slate.msn.com/id/2127052/
slate.msn.com/id/2128238/entry/2128240/?nav=tap3
evolution.berkeley.edu/ The ID'ers use the word "theory" in the way that scientists would use the term "hypothesis", or mathematicians would use the term "conjecture". The scientific term "theory" is not the same as the word "theory" that is used in everyday conversation by the non-scientist members of the general public.

[daenku32]

Sounds like the most recent argument Behe is doing as witness in the trial, is that ID does not attempt to contradict any part of evolutionary theory. Ie, species can evolve and change, and organisms can evolve but, BUT some particular ones just happened to be designed by intelligence.

Kind of the "not going against anyone, just giving explanation to unknown". The problem often is that when Behe concentrates on the current unknowns, real science has to play catch-up to provide the real answers. And whatever Behe reports sticks like fly tape to public cravices.

[Mojo]

Sounds like the most recent argument Behe is doing as witness in the trial, is that ID does not attempt to contradict any part of evolutionary theory. Ie, species can evolve and change, and organisms can evolve but, BUT some particular ones just happened to be designed by intelligence.

Kind of the "not going against anyone, just giving explanation to unknown". The problem often is that when Behe concentrates on the current unknowns, real science has to play catch-up to provide the real answers. And whatever Behe reports sticks like fly tape to public cravices.He's also busy redefining the term "scientific theory." Or at least trying to. And looking pretty silly while he's at it, from what I've read about it so far. See here (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178), for example.

[Melendwyr]

An important thing to remember about science is that any idea can be proven wrong. If there is no way to prove a theory wrong (for example, ID), it's not science. Not strictly true - tautologies can be part of science.

[Belz...]

Not strictly true - tautologies can be part of science.

But a theory isn't scientific unless it can be falsified, whether or not it is falsified.

[Mid]

Evolution is a fact; we have observed it. Popular examples include the evolution of a new species of mosquito in the London underground (subway).
...snip...


That sounds interesting do you have a link to any article about it?

[Mojo]

That sounds interesting do you have a link to any article about it?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10200079&dopt=Abstract

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

http://www.zinkle.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157

[Mid]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10200079&dopt=Abstract

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

http://www.zinkle.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157

Thanks :)

[hammegk]

As usual, I shall mention Minsky's Theorem of Evolution:

Unless you can find a problem with the premises, evolution happens.

~~ Paul
And, correctly enough, that is a FACT. Mutation and change is a fact. To date however, in the lab and in the ecosystem, mosquitos remains mosquitos, flies remain flies, bacteria bacteria, etc.

The THEORY is that every rna/dna lifeform (let's ignore viruses for the moment) has one common ancestor -- well, or is it two, prokaryotes and eukaryotes may, or may not, represent 2 different abiogenesis events.

"Species" -- say something we as laymen would recognize, cat & dog for example -- is the concept where evolution becomes The THEORY. The fossil record has been interpreted to bolster this claim, but in living things, any such macroevolutionary event remains a theoretical claim rather than a fact.

[Melendwyr]

If we're interpreting "macroevolution" to mean "divergence of species", that claim is simply false. If we're talking about moving from one kingdom to another, then it's never been observed, and is highly unlikely to ever be observed.

[Schneibster]

Hi, hammy. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Of particular note: "The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence." (Emphasis mine.)

[Melendwyr]

"Species" -- say something we as laymen would recognize, cat & dog for example -- is the concept where evolution becomes The THEORY. The fossil record has been interpreted to bolster this claim, but in living things, any such macroevolutionary event remains a theoretical claim rather than a fact. What about chimps and humans? Their DNA differs by something like, what was it, six percent?

How much "microevolution" must occur before it counts as "macroevolution"?

[drkitten]

How much "microevolution" must occur before it counts as "macroevolution"?

At least a little bit more. (See Goalposts, Moving the, Fallacy of.)

[hammegk]

If we're interpreting "macroevolution" to mean "divergence of species", that claim is simply false.
We are not, and you are wrong.


If we're talking about moving from one kingdom to another, then it's never been observed, and is highly unlikely to ever be observed.
Not for kingdom, nor for Phylum/Division, Class, Order, Family or Tribe, nor Genus, either. That is, species remain species no matter how much "mutation" is observed.


"The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence."
So pontificate defenders of The Theory. What is in indisputable evidence is that internal to a species, mutation occurs (that is, "evolution" is a fact in that sense).


What about chimps and humans?
What about 'em? Do we have data showing either critter
currently evolving into some new genus? Of course, The Theory demands a common ancestor; we just haven't found it. Usually based on genetic similarity, time estimates have been made as to how long ago this 'common ancestor' lived; those estimates vary by orders of magnitude from a few thousand years to millions of years.

[Mojo]

If we're interpreting "macroevolution" to mean "divergence of species", that claim is simply false. If we're talking about moving from one kingdom to another, then it's never been observed, and is highly unlikely to ever be observed.If the theory of evolution by natural selection, as it's understood at present (or indeed as it's ever been understood at any time over the last couple of centuries), is true then we won't see anything moving from one kingdom to another. We're back looking at creationist strawmen here.

[Schneibster]

OK, let's try the big stick.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

There is an enormous amount of interlocking evidence from different disciplines that all says exactly the same thing. There are atavisms, there is ontogeny, there are transitional forms, there is a full agreement with expected evolutionary patterns in both the currently extant species and among the fossil species, and these patterns interlock. We have observed speciation, over and over again; there are literally thousands of observations of new species. There are ring species. Different organisms, developing the same structure, do so differently; for example, the bee wing, the bird wing, the bat wing, and the pterodactyl wing all evolved differently, but all are wings.

The evidence for evolution is comprehensive, interlocking, consistent, and, at this time, irrefutable (except by false arguments or deliberate use of known logical errors). Not "believing" in evolution is equivalent to not "believing" in gravity, given the evidence. It has nothing to do with skepticism, and everything to do with emotional judgements and the rationalization of same.

[Mojo]

And, correctly enough, that is a FACT. Mutation and change is a fact. To date however, in the lab and in the ecosystem, mosquitos remains mosquitos, flies remain flies, bacteria bacteria, etc.Do you really believe that there is only one species of mosquito, only one species of fly, only one species of bacteria?

And, since mosquitos are a species of fly, do you not see the contradiction in this belief (if you do indeed hold it)?

Or are you just back to kinds or baramin or whatever?

[Iamme]

OK, let's try the big stick.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

............; there are literally thousands of observations of new species. There are ring species. Different organisms, developing the same structure, do so differently; for example, the bee wing, the bird wing, the bat wing, and the pterodactyl wing all evolved differently, but all are wings.

So?

Pretend that MAN is God, for a moment...just to see my point. Man decides to create a frying pan from scratch. He makes one batch of metal and forms it into pan. Then, someone else decides to take another batch of metal and make a kettle. They are both food holding things that you cook with ontop a stove. (Comparable to the variations amongst wings) Yet, they arose from two separate locations, individually, not related at all.

What makes you even think that a bee wing has anything to do with a skeletalized bat wing? The membranes are comPLETELY diferent, as is the musuclar/skeletal workings of each. JUST because they are wings..like the cookiing pans....soooooooo? This to me proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And chimps and human dna is only 1-2 % different (not 6% as someone else above offered). And does that prove we share the same ancestor? Could be. But then again, maybe not. Maybe God decided to use BASICALLY the same batch of ingredients, but decided to throw in a few bonuses with humans. How do you NOT know that that is true?

[Mojo]

What makes you even think that a bee wing has anything to do with a skeletalized bat wing? What makes you think that anybody has suggested that these have anything to do with each other apart from the fact that they have a similar function? The quotation you've posted certainly doesn't.

[Schneibster]

What makes you even think that a bee wing has anything to do with a skeletalized bat wing? Errrrmmm... I dunno... because you can FLY with them?

Hey, you threw it out there- what, did you think I was just gonna watch it go by and not swing at it?

This to me proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.It's one among seventeen bullet points, each point of which describes hundreds or thousands of actual data points, all of which interlock, each pointing to other ones, and all of which point to exactly the same conclusion: the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Nice job, you just said that you're not convinced by one single example out of literally thousands, among an array of hundreds of thousands of facts that all point to exactly the same thing. Sorry, but I can't help noting that you're arguing about one single thing among hundreds of thousands. And claiming "there's no evolution" based on that SINGLE ARGUMENT. Great. Here's mine:

Somebody in the bible raped people, so it's an evil book. Period. I don't care what else is in there, it's got a rape in it, so it's EVIL. People who read it, or go to churches that are based on it, should be banned. We should teach in school that religion based on this evil book is evil too. It should be illegal.

End of argument.

[metacristi]

While watching the classic "Cosmos", Carl Sagan makes the statement "evolution is a fact". Obviously, living creatures can change over time, this is a fact. Don’t drug-resistant bacteria and the silver fox constitute examples of evolution?

What I don't understand is the current Intelligent Design supporters stating that evolution is a theory. Do ID supporters mean that the evolution of man from ape is a theory? Yes, that's true, it's a theory, a very well substantiated theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Of course, ID supporters may want to call it "intelligent falling" as the website "The Onion" did in an article a while back. w w w.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Am I incorrect in believing evolution is a fact, or do I need to re-classify evolution as theory?

No doubt you are not incorrect to believe that evolution is a fact, the actual version of the evolution theory fully deserve now the status of 'first research program' (thus the sustainers of ID do not have, currently at least, the right to claim epistemological privilege, not even equal privilege, with evolutionary theory).

However this in no way implies that a sort of intelligent design is impossible, though, of course, currently there is no sufficient reason to hold such a theory as being the first choice program in science, the actual 'normal science'. Indeed it would be enough a sufficient reason showing clearly that certain macro changes could not have happened naturally (at least not in the amount of time we think now it happened) to change things entirely.

A single such example, involving a macro evolution from one species to another would be enough, actually some ID supporters do not even dispute macro evolution in entirety. This scenario is still fully possible from all we know now, for example alien genetic manipulations.

Unfortunately from the mere fact that some programmes are not progressive now we cannot derive the much stronger conclusion that this will ever be the case...we must always retain fallibilism...Actually this is the big mistake of pseudo-skeptics, from the fact, for ex., that science does not study 'souls' they derive the too strong conclusion that 'souls' do not exist and that all rational people should not believe in their existence...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And, correctly enough, that is a FACT. Mutation and change is a fact. To date however, in the lab and in the ecosystem, mosquitos remains mosquitos, flies remain flies, bacteria bacteria, etc.
Define species any way you care to. What biological mechanism are you proposing that would limit evolution so that it could not bridge the species gap?

And, of course, you are ignoring the fossil record in your "ecosystem."

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A single such example, involving a macro evolution from one species to another would be enough, actually some ID supporters do not even dispute macro evolution in entirety. This scenario is still fully possible from all we know now, for example alien genetic manipulations.
There are examples, and IDers will move the goalposts yet again to allow any and all forms of evolution, except for specific examples that are held back as demonstrating ID. Hell, they've already done that. In No Free Lunch, Dembski has us believing that the entire bacterium is naturalistic, except for its flagellum. Ridiculous.

~~ Paul

[Roboramma]

You know, I don't think I've ever heard a single good reason posited by creationists that all of the created "kinds" that lactate also have the same structure of inner ear bones, but none of the "kinds" that have feathers have that structure.
Why? I mean, not even one bird with mammalian ears?
Why don't any reptiles grow fur? Why do the only flying mammals have completely different wings than birds? (I think this is the point made above that Iamme failed to grasp..) Why do no feathered fliers have the same structures that all bats share?

Common decent explains this. "Special creation" doesn't. Of course Darwin pointed this out 150 years ago, but some people are still plugging their ears.

Now this isn't conclusive in and of itself. That's why we can also look at dozens of other lines of evidence. Including the refinement of the above argument that can be made with an understanding of DNA.

[arias]

But a theory isn't scientific unless it can be falsified, whether or not it is falsified.

This is too simplistic an answer -- you're ripping out Karl Popper's thesis and taking it as THE model for a theory. You do know the history of Philosophy of Science, and how this "a theory is a construct that can be tested and is possible to falsify" idea works, right? Then you should know that Quine put forward a "web of coherence" which I believe is much more cohesive and renders the falsification requirement no longer definitive -- still useful, but no longer the base to inspect the status of a theory upon.

[Iamme]

Originally Posted by Iamme :
What makes you even think that a bee wing has anything to do with a skeletalized bat wing?

Schneibster:
Errrrmmm... I dunno... because you can FLY with them?

Iamme:
That was good. i like that. :)

Scneibster:
Hey, you threw it out there- what, did you think I was just gonna watch it go by and not swing at it?

Iamme:
I liked that too.

Originally Posted by Iamme :
This to me proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Schneibster:
It's one among seventeen bullet points, each point of which describes hundreds or thousands of actual data points, all of which interlock, each pointing to other ones, and all of which point to exactly the same conclusion: the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Nice job, you just said that you're not convinced by one single example out of literally thousands, among an array of hundreds of thousands of facts that all point to exactly the same thing. Sorry, but I can't help noting that you're arguing about one single thing among hundreds of thousands. And claiming "there's no evolution" based on that SINGLE ARGUMENT. Great. Here's mine:

Somebody in the bible raped people, so it's an evil book. Period. I don't care what else is in there, it's got a rape in it, so it's EVIL. People who read it, or go to churches that are based on it, should be banned. We should teach in school that religion based on this evil book is evil too. It should be illegal.

End of argument.

Iamme:
Awwwww. I really dont' think you want the debate to go away. Probably hoping *I* go away. You mean to tell me that everyone, like many Ph.D.'s who don't believe in macro-evolution, are idiots? Check out Dr. Carl Baugh at Creationscience.org. He claims HE was an evolutionist himself...once.

Regarding the Bible: Seeing my life is incomplete and I don't understand everything yet, I am reserving judgement on the Bible, even though I agree with you that a lot of what is said in there sounds rather odd. There is more REALLY odd stuff in there. Go read Deuteronomy once.

[metacristi]

There are examples, and IDers will move the goalposts yet again to allow any and all forms of evolution, except for specific examples that are held back as demonstrating ID. Hell, they've already done that. In No Free Lunch, Dembski has us believing that the entire bacterium is naturalistic, except for its flagellum. Ridiculous.

~~ Paul

I had in mind an explanation / interpretation of some observed facts which to be considered 'crucial' by the scientific community determining them to prefer a variant of ID as the first choice program, this possibility is in no way eliminated by the above mentioned type of examples. I do not know exactly what justification presented the above mentioned authors but it is even possible that they are right in absolute though the actual version of rationality (non algorithmic anyway) used by scientists do not indicate their views as being the first choice program now. We must never forget that the actual minimal scientific methodology is imperfect, being only our best 'tool' so far to make sense of observed facts. Future might still be full of surprises (some of my thoughts dealing with philosophy of science, supporting what I said above, can be found here (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=16644&highlight=metacristi&findpost=303389#post303389) and here (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=16815&highlight=metacristi&findpost=302645#post302645)).

[Schneibster]

Errrrmmm... I dunno... because you can FLY with them? That was good. i like that. :)Heh, well, if it's just a philosophical argument, then glad you found it amusing.

Here's mine:

Somebody in the bible raped people, so it's an evil book. Period. I don't care what else is in there, it's got a rape in it, so it's EVIL. People who read it, or go to churches that are based on it, should be banned. We should teach in school that religion based on this evil book is evil too. It should be illegal.

End of argument.Awwwww. I really dont' think you want the debate to go away. Probably hoping *I* go away. You mean to tell me that everyone, like many Ph.D.'s who don't believe in macro-evolution, are idiots? Check out Dr. Carl Baugh at Creationscience.org. He claims HE was an evolutionist himself...once.Now, keep in mind, evolution is a fact- but the theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory. The theory attempts to explain why evolution occurs, not that it occurs. We can see it occurs; that's not in question (unless you care to ignore the entire science of biology). Unless of course you prefer to believe that god is out to fool us all; personally, being an atheist, I don't believe there is a god, but even if I am wrong I have read enough of the bible to be relatively certain that god would do no such thing, and all the evidence of the physical sciences says that in fact, if s/he does exist, s/he would not.

Regarding the Bible: Seeing my life is incomplete and I don't understand everything yet, I am reserving judgement on the Bible, even though I agree with you that a lot of what is said in there sounds rather odd. There is more REALLY odd stuff in there. Go read Deuteronomy once.Now don't misinterpret me; my intention was not to present an actual argument against the bible, it was instead a reductio ad absurdum showing that the argument you presented against evolution is senseless, and leads to incorrect conclusions. I'd count this one a swing and a miss on your part.

[flume]

When the proponents of ID assume their ideas are the only alternatives to current evolutionary thought, I believe they are wrong. There are oher alternatives and 'controversies' floating around. Pleomorphism (http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/pleo.html) (discussed in the "pH Miracle" books by Young and also books on alkalinizing by the Jubbs) is an idea which contradicts cell theory and germ theory. This is another idea originally from the 1800s. It proposes that life is formed from the coalescence of tiny particles which can make viruses, bacteria, fungi and higher eukaryotic cells reversibly, so that various lifeforms can appear and change into one another spontaneously. (E.g. Young, doing 'live blood cell analysis' with a microscope, 'saw' a red blood cell change into a bacteria and then back into a red blood cell.) Young calls this the New Biology.
I assume this belief would require a different version of evolution (although the Jubbs do apparently accept evolution at some level.).
(There is also the idea of biological transmutation from Louis Kervran, which describes chickens changing silicon to calcium in their bodies in response to calcium deficiency.)

[swstephe]

i think you guys are falling into the "id" trap: that of lumping everything together and discrediting the bundle because certain parts are not directly observable. inside the "evolution" lump, they are including the fact of natural selection, the overwhelming evidence of similarity of biological structures and the hyposthesis of the origin of current speciation.

it is kind of like a murder trial. you have the facts of evidence, (blood stains, dna, all that good csi stuff), you have some substantial correlations, you come up with a verdict, which is the most reasonable hypothesis for what really happened, (beyond a shadow of a doubt). the hypothesis can't become "fact" without detailed recording.

id-ers want to have the case thrown out entirely without presenting any evidence, correlation but simply one testimony, (not even by an eye witness -- which would have been thrown out as "hearsay").

[HeyLeroy]

This is the most succinct explanation I've found to put down the "just a theory" argument. It's from the November 2005 issue of Discover magazine.

"Theory

Most people use the word theory to mean uncertainty, guesswork, or a rough idea, but in science it has a different meaning. A scientific theory explains facts or phenomena that have been shown to be true by repeated independent tests and experiments. An educated guess in science is called a hypothesis.

Scientific theories are not laws, which describe phenomena thought to be invariable. Theories are generally used to describe why certain laws work. For example, the law of gravity is known to be true for falling bodies, but how and why it works is explained by Alfred Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein's theory was accepted as true only after repeated experimentation and observation. Yet not even laws are absolute. They are rarely overturned, but they may be amended should new data warrant it."

--Maia Weinstock

(Or it could be Intelligent Falling, just the same. Arrrh!)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm sorry, but there is something about the name "Alfred Einstein" that I find hysterical. Perhaps I'm thinking of Alfred E. Neuman.

~~ Paul

[HeyLeroy]

I'm sorry, but there is something about the name "Alfred Einstein" that I find hysterical. Perhaps I'm thinking of Alfred E. Neuman.

~~ Paul

Yeah, my bad. I proofed it for spelling but that one slipped by. I'm posting on the sly from work, but that's no excuse.

Throw me in the bulk bin!