Why is evolution still considered

[Plastictowel]

A Theory?????

[TobiasTheViking]

because it still is a theory... What do you mean?

Why is gravity still considered
A Theory?????

:D

[Darat]

A Theory?????

Because science never really declares anything as certain - and we certainly ;) know evolution is not (at least) a completely accurate theory.

[Psi Baba]

A Theory?????
It is only "considered" a theory by creationists and ID'ers.

Misconceptions about Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml)

[Buckaroo]

A Theory?????

You're confusing the pop definition of "theory" with the scientific one. Here's a good link that discusses this common misunderstanding:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Jorghnassen]

You might want to go read myth #1 on this page... (http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html)

[Mojo]

because it still is a theory... What do you mean?

Why is gravity still considered
A Theory?????

:DThings falling is an observed fact. Gravity is a theory explaining how this happens.

Similarly, we know from observation that species change, for example, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or able to digest nylon. Speciation has been observed, for example in mosquitos in the London Underground. Evolution by natural selection is a theory explaining how this happens.

In both cases, the phenomena are real; the theories are attempts to explain the phenomena.

[c4ts]

Why is scientific theory still confused with wild speculation?

[firecoins]

Why is scientific theory still confused with wild speculation?
my theory is nobody takes the time to read books on the subject. Wait...I just speculated.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evolution isn't a theory it's a fact. The 'theory of evolution' that explains the fact of evolution is a theory. Don't confuse "Evolution" with "The theory of Evolution". There's a big difference.

Gravity isn't a theory but a fact. The 'theory of gravity' that explains the fact of gravity is a theory.

[fuelair]

A Theory?????

By definition, a scientific theory is a tested (heavily) statement of how something works/functions/ occurs - it explains.

A scientific law states a massively observed and studied happens.

Laws state but do not explain. Theories explain. Good little theories do not grow up to be Laws. At most, new information may change a theory or modify a law.

[T'ai Chi]

Change over time is never in dispute.

[Windom]

Evolution isn't a theory it's a fact.
No theory in science can ever become a "fact". Evolution is a theory indeed. Fact is that we have life on this plannet and we have fossils and DNA. Theory states that evolution of life happens and explains how exactly it works.


As for me, it is more interesting why evolution is still considered to be a subject for debates. Why nobody doubts that Earth goes around the Sun then?

[brodski]

Why nobody doubts that Earth goes around the Sun then?

Ahem http://www.fixedearth.com/ :p

You seem to have forgotten that three is no idea so totally in opposition to the observed facts that someone, somewhere won't have a web page promoting it. :D

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena. Scientifically, the words theory and fact are not different rungs on a heirarchy of certainty, they are two different things. Species change over time is a fact, as is common decent. The mechanisms by which that happens such as punctuated equilibrium would be the theories.

As for the fixed earth people, I'd probably be more angry at them if there weren't so few of them. And their arguments are so silly as to not even be worth mentioning... so I'm gonna mention it. The first thing you see on that page is a fundimental confusion of electromagnetism and gravity. This guy also loses total credibility (if he had any to start with) when he refers to science as a kabbalist conspiracy. Also this guy is working on his PhD in Advanced International Studies.... of course making him the most qualified person to speak about the flaws in mainstream physics and the state of modern science.

[ponderingturtle]

because it still is a theory... What do you mean?

Why is gravity still considered
A Theory?????

:D


Personally I think we need to teach Intelligent Attraction as an alternative to gravity in high school. That is right you fall because an Inteligent Being who I choose to call Fred pushes you, not some mysterious force called gravity.

This is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY BECUASE I SAY SO, following the rules set forth by the Discovery Institute we need to teach the controversy between IA and Netwonism.

[brettDbass]

...there is no idea so totally in opposition to the observed facts that someone, somewhere won't have a web page promoting it. :D

Well, that's an interesting theory...

[Windom]

Ahem (fixedearth url goes here)



I've seen this before. I didn't read very carefuly so I thought it's a joke. Isn't it? :_(

[DeviousB]

Personally I think we need to teach Intelligent Attraction as an alternative to gravity in high school.

I concur, but I don't like the name. Apart from being altogether too long, I don't think any of our potential supporters will sit well with the idea of any sort of attraction in the classroom.

Why not call it Intelligent Descent?

[DeviousB]

No theory in science can ever become a "fact". Evolution is a theory indeed. Fact is that we have life on this plannet and we have fossils and DNA. Theory states that evolution of life happens and explains how exactly it works.

It is both ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html ), in part because of the vernacular way in which it is used. Evolution as fact implies that the logical inference from a set of observations and/or empirical measurements admit only one naturalistic explanation. It is a fact that the Earth goes round the Sun (in any phsyically consistent frame of reference), this has never actually been observed though.


(Apologies to Buckaroo, but links to talkorigins can always bear repeating.)

[mumchup]

I think I understand this theory/law thing thusly:
- The Law of Gravity explains how dropped things fall to earth.
- The Theory of Relativity explains why dropped things fall to earth.

[Windom]

OK I don't feel like discussing on how to call things, because words are our servants, not masters. You can call evolution a theroy, a fact, "just a theory" or even "a piece of crap" as long as I understand what do you mean by that AND as long as you don't use definition as an evidence for something (e.g. "evolution theory is false because it's only a theory").

[ponderingturtle]

I think I understand this theory/law thing thusly:
- The Law of Gravity explains how dropped things fall to earth.
- The Theory of Relativity explains why dropped things fall to earth.

That depends on who is useing them and what the mean by them. There is not much that should be described as a law in science. The ones that come the most to mind is concervation of energy and concervation of momentum.

The point here is that laws are partialy based on observation but also that we can not immagion the universe working in a different way.

[Dunstan]

Personally I think we need to teach Intelligent Attraction as an alternative to gravity in high school. That is right you fall because an Inteligent Being who I choose to call Fred pushes you, not some mysterious force called gravity.

This is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY BECUASE I SAY SO, following the rules set forth by the Discovery Institute we need to teach the controversy between IA and Netwonism.

I can't believe I'm the first person in this thread to link to this classic Onion article. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

[brodski]

Well, that's an interesting theory...

Yay, I've been quoted by the Curious Orange! :D

I've seen this before. I didn't read very carefuly so I thought it's a joke. Isn't it? :_(

unfortunately I think it's genuine, there are certainly genuine "modern Geocentrists" out there. :boggled:

[ponderingturtle]

Yay, I've been quoted by the Curious Orange! :D



unfortunately I think it's genuine, there are certainly genuine "modern Geocentrists" out there. :boggled:

And lets not forget the flat earthers.

[mumchup]

That depends on who is useing them and what the mean by them. There is not much that should be described as a law in science. The ones that come the most to mind is concervation of energy and concervation of momentum.

The point here is that laws are partialy based on observation but also that we can not immagion the universe working in a different way.

The definition doesn't change depending on who's using them, they are either used correctly or incorrectly (I am referring only to using law/theory in a scientific context, of course the words can have other definitions in other contexts.)
According to Merriam-Webster Online, a law is "a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions"
And a theory is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"
There is, in fact, a Universal Law of Gravitation. It was described by Sir Isaac Newton. It only explains what gravity does though, because it explains what we observe.
The theory, or what mechanism might be involved in causing gravity, comes to light in the Theory of Relativity.
If you wanted to, you could say that this means that relativity is "only" a theory. But it wouldn't make any more sense than saying that since gravity is a law, you could break it, but you'd get a fine.
The solution to the "Evolution is only a theory" problem isn't to let the ID people change the definition of words to suit themselves, it's to educate the public so they'll see through their BS.

[roger]

OK I don't feel like discussing on how to call things, because words are our servants, not masters. You can call evolution a theroy, a fact, "just a theory" or even "a piece of crap" as long as I understand what do you mean by that AND as long as you don't use definition as an evidence for something (e.g. "evolution theory is false because it's only a theory").
Well, it's more than dictionary wars going on here. Evolution is both a fact and theory. Evolution, and its mechanisms have been observed. Thus, it's a fact, just like it's a fact that gravity exists.

All the mechanisms of how evolution works, like the mechanisms of how gravity works, are theories. We may revise our understanding of how either works, but we will never decide that evolution or gravity does not exist, because we have overwhelming evidence for both that they do exist.

[Windom]

OK basicaly I agree with you, Roger. So we call evolution process itself, and a theory of evolution - explanation of how evolution works.

Like, in other words, my alternative theory can be that some gnomes do gene mutations in their secret laboratories, which still doesn't deny that evolution happens anyway.

If we put it this way, creationism is not an alternative to evolution theory at all: because it denies evolution itself. Am I right? (lets just forget for now that creationism can be alternative only to intelligence anyway, for the purpose of discussion).

[ponderingturtle]

The definition doesn't change depending on who's using them, they are either used correctly or incorrectly (I am referring only to using law/theory in a scientific context, of course the words can have other definitions in other contexts.)
According to Merriam-Webster Online, a law is "a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions"


So a law is as set of observations? That makes no sense.

[Windom]

So a law is as set of observations? That makes no sense.


Well but it is indeed. A scientific low is nothing more than a set of observations. As far as I know.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evolution=Fact
Theory of Evolution=Theory

That simple.

[ponderingturtle]

Well but it is indeed. A scientific low is nothing more than a set of observations. As far as I know.

That does not fit with what I learned. The only Laws I ever remember referenceing is concervation laws.

[Garrette]

Evolution=Fact
Theory of Evolution=Theory

That simple.Yes, if you understand the scientific use of "Theory" as opposed to the lay use of it.

[mumchup]

There are quite a few Laws kicking around.

[ponderingturtle]

There are quite a few Laws kicking around.

But how much of that is sloppy laypeople not understanding what a scientific theory is and what a law is in science?

[mumchup]

But how much of that is sloppy laypeople not understanding what a scientific theory is and what a law is in science?

Whah? There are:
Laws of Planetary Motion
Newton's Laws of Gravity
Conservation of Energy
etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps you don't understand that a law and a theory are not the same thing. Here's a link to a site written by Ronald H. Matson, Ph.D.; Professor of Biology and Chair at Kennesaw State University.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

[HeyLeroy]

Why is evolution still considered A Theory?????

Here's why:

"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 Albert 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

[ponderingturtle]

Whah? There are:
Laws of Planetary Motion
Newton's Laws of Gravity
Conservation of Energy
etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps you don't understand that a law and a theory are not the same thing. Here's a link to a site written by Ronald H. Matson, Ph.D.; Professor of Biology and Chair at Kennesaw State University.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

No I just never refered to most of those as Laws when I was in physics class. As I said the only laws I remember are concervation laws. In taking a full bachelors in physics we did not talk about laws all that often.

[mumchup]

Earlier in this thread, in response to "There are quite a few Laws kicking around." -
But how much of that is sloppy laypeople not understanding what a scientific theory is and what a law is in science?



Then later, in response to
"Whah? There are:
Laws of Planetary Motion
Newton's Laws of Gravity
Conservation of Energy
etc. etc. etc."

No I just never refered to most of those as Laws when I was in physics class. As I said the only laws I remember are concervation laws. In taking a full bachelors in physics we did not talk about laws all that often.

[Cuddles]

OK basicaly I agree with you, Roger. So we call evolution process itself, and a theory of evolution - explanation of how evolution works.

Like, in other words, my alternative theory can be that some gnomes do gene mutations in their secret laboratories, which still doesn't deny that evolution happens anyway.

If we put it this way, creationism is not an alternative to evolution theory at all: because it denies evolution itself. Am I right? (lets just forget for now that creationism can be alternative only to intelligence anyway, for the purpose of discussion).

Pretty much right. This is why they've suddenly turned to ID instead, since that accepts that things change, and so isn't obviously at odds with reality.

[mumchup]

And since it "isn't about religion", it isn't at odds with the Supreme Court. Except when they forget, and accidentally mention that it really is about religion.

[T'ai Chi]

Or is it just theism-friendly just like evolution is atheism-friendly?

[Windom]

ID assumes existence of an intelligent super-being, which is clearly religious. Or do you have some scientific evidence of God? An article from a peer reviewed sience magazine would do. Like "Mitchigan laboratory yesterday proved existence of god. Other news..."

[fuelair]

because it still is a theory... What do you mean?

Why is gravity still considered
A Theory?????

:D

Scientific caution - something might happen that proves/suggests that there is really not a force we are calling gravity but something else is doing what we thought it was. Never assume that just because it has appeared obvious and justified for a few hundred years that something won't be discovered/developed that will change it. What skepticism is all about!!

[HeyLeroy]

OK basicaly I agree with you, Roger. So we call evolution process itself, and a theory of evolution - explanation of how evolution works.

Like, in other words, my alternative theory can be that some gnomes do gene mutations in their secret laboratories, which still doesn't deny that evolution happens anyway.

If we put it this way, creationism is not an alternative to evolution theory at all: because it denies evolution itself. Am I right? (lets just forget for now that creationism can be alternative only to intelligence anyway, for the purpose of discussion).

Back when I was a newbie here, I started a thread on just this topic!

Theory ov Evolution vs. Process of Evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46917)

[T'ai Chi]

ID assumes existence of an intelligent super-being, which is clearly religious.


So to you, an advanced alien race would be religious?

[HeyLeroy]

that would be design by committee, no? Sure would 'splain a lot.

[ponderingturtle]

So to you, an advanced alien race would be religious?

No the problem is that a divine alien race is still a divine being. The general principle of ID is that life and specificaly inteligent life must be designed. So then who designed that alien race that designed up? And who designed them?

You either have to come to an absolute that breaks the intent of ID"god always existed" and how can you do that with aliens?

Aliens are just a cop out trying for a nondivine inteligence, but you have to impart several of the traits of godhood onto them to get them there.

[Windom]

So to you, an advanced alien race would be religious?

Yes, ofcourse. Or do you have any scientific data about existence of one?

[drkitten]

So to you, an advanced alien race would be religious?

An advanced alien race is demonstrably not what the ID proponents suggest.

This argument was made, and rejected, by the defense at Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

The plaintiffs had no problem doing the demonstration I alluded to above.

So unless you have a more convincing set of arguments and writings about how one can have ID without God, don't bother.

[Windom]

An advanced alien race is demonstrably not what the ID proponents suggest.


As far as I know some of them do. Like Scientology or some sect which commited mass suicide, don't remember the name now.

[drkitten]

As far as I know some of them do.

Well, then your knowledge exceeds that of the defense witnesses and counsel in Kitzmiller.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

ID proponents have made it abundently clear that any use of "aliens" in their argument is just sheep's clothing to cover up God in their arguments. Go read any Discovery Institute lit that is directed at their members, as opposed to their opponents, to see this.

[Dr Adequate]

Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." (Philip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement.)

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (William Dembski, leading proponent of Intelligent Design.)

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." (Of Pandas And People, the world's only textbook on Intelligent Design, as it was eventually published.)

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
(Of Pandas And People, the world's only textbook on Intelligent Design, as it was first drafted.)

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." (Philip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement.)

[Windom]

Well, then your knowledge exceeds that of the defense witnesses and counsel in Kitzmiller.

If you think ID is not appropriate term for beliefs like those I mentioned, we can use the term "UFO-design" or whatever else instead. I never debate for terms or meaning of words. If you say ID means god and nothing else, let it be. Over.

[Yahzi]

A Theory?????
Why do people still believe in souls?

Because getting the answer you want is ever so much more popular than getting the answer that is true.

[Windom]

So, I've just finished watching Penn and Teller "********!" on creationism. And it wasn't fun at all this time, it was terrible. What the hell is going on in USA? I always knew creationism is strong there, but I've never seen disclaimer in textbooks "evolution is only a theory and must be treated skepticaly". Do you call it education?!

I've got really poor education here in LT, but comparing to what I've just seen... :eye-poppi:eek::jaw-dropp

please tell me somebody that everything is not so bad...

[Mojo]

OK basicaly I agree with you, Roger. So we call evolution process itself, and a theory of evolution - explanation of how evolution works.

Like, in other words, my alternative theory can be that some gnomes do gene mutations in their secret laboratories, which still doesn't deny that evolution happens anyway.

If we put it this way, creationism is not an alternative to evolution theory at all: because it denies evolution itself. Am I right? (lets just forget for now that creationism can be alternative only to intelligence anyway, for the purpose of discussion).
Pretty much right. This is why they've suddenly turned to ID instead, since that accepts that things change, and so isn't obviously at odds with reality.Actually, some "Young Earth" creationists claim that change happens (and in fact happens very rapidly indeed) but only within "kinds". This is one of the ways they try to get around the problem of Noah's ark being too small to get all current species in. The idea is that there was, for example, one pair of the cat "kind" on the ark, and these have, over the last few thousand years, evolved into all existing cats. See, for example, the diagram headed "The Created Cat Kind" about half way down this page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) from Answers in Genesis. They don't consider change within a "kind" to be evolution, even if it plainly involves speciation. Species can change, apparently, but something prevents them from changing too much.

[Cuddles]

Actually, some "Young Earth" creationists claim that change happens (and in fact happens very rapidly indeed) but only within "kinds". This is one of the ways they try to get around the problem of Noah's ark being too small to get all current species in. The idea is that there was, for example, one pair of the cat "kind" on the ark, and these have, over the last few thousand years, evolved into all existing cats. See, for example, the diagram headed "The Created Cat Kind" about half way down this page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp) from Answers in Genesis. They don't consider change within a "kind" to be evolution, even if it plainly involves speciation. Species can change, apparently, but something prevents them from changing too much.

Well the only evidence for anything more is from fossils. And we all know that they were put there by our giant alien lizard overlords.

The more I read about these people, the more I wonder how they manage to figure out how to put their clothes on, let alone do anything more complicated.

[Arthur ASCII]

[QUOTE=

Like, in other words, my alternative theory can be that some gnomes do gene mutations in their secret laboratories, which still doesn't deny that evolution happens anyway.

QUOTE]

I don't think your theory is as silly as it sounds. I'm sure that even the great Carl Sagan referred to these "gene-gnomes" in one of his books. :)


Arthur