Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 16 of 164 (176600)
01-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
Sorry, I guess I stumbled into the wrong forum, I was just wondering why any opposing theory was ridiculed when evolution seems so ridiculous to me. I'll go away now and not question your accepted line of thought. I guess this is what happened when Sir Karl Popper made the mistake of questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. No wonder he recanted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:23 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 3:40 PM xevolutionist has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 164 (176604)
01-13-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
My apologies it seems you did have a stab at answering the question:
quote:
If evolution were in fact testable and there actually was evidence of it then it would become a fact.
Oh dear, this is very poor, you mention popper in another post, but clearly you don't understand his work or anything that followed it. Do you actually understand what a "fact" is in science?
Would you like me to recommend a basic primmer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:23 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 18 of 164 (176606)
01-13-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by CK
01-13-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual. Obviously, I'm way over my head here and I'll go back to the books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 3:27 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 3:45 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 4:26 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 19 of 164 (176607)
01-13-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:31 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
quote:
Sorry, I guess I stumbled into the wrong forum, I was just wondering why any opposing theory was ridiculed when evolution seems so ridiculous to me. I'll go away now and not question your accepted line of thought. I guess this is what happened when Sir Karl Popper made the mistake of questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. No wonder he recanted.
Dear oh dear - you are having a poor day on here. Don't tell us half a story, why don't you tell us why Popper recanted on his viewpoint that evolution was a metaphysical research program?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:31 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:52 PM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 20 of 164 (176609)
01-13-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:38 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
quote:
I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual. Obviously, I'm way over my head here and I'll go back to the books.
Good idea! I think the problem is that you are trying to apply a layman's understanding of terms to science where the means are very different. One of the main problems is the use of the word "fact" in general use people use it to mean "something that is true/proven"; in science, we generally use it to describe something that we have observe on such a repeatable basis that it we all generally agree with what what we see*. The other problem is that we never prove anything in science - we disprove anything. It's not that evolution has been proven to be "true" but rather than it has never been disproved.
* and I don't mean just with our eyes, it can cover any number of measurement methods.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-13-2005 15:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:38 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 21 of 164 (176611)
01-13-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by CK
01-13-2005 3:40 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
You're having too much fun with me. I don't know why Popper recanted. Could it be that he was ridiculed and ostracised from the scientific community? Regardless, I just asked a couple of questions and stated my beliefs. Even if you offer panspermia as a solution to the ORIGIN of life, you just move the problem to another location don't you? Forget I asked that question, I can't take any more ridicule. Ow, that hurts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 3:40 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 4:01 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 33 by Steen, posted 01-16-2005 6:07 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 22 of 164 (176613)
01-13-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:52 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
I'm sorry about that - it's just that when you've been at this site for a long time, it's very difficult hearing the same misunderstandings over and over again.
Popper? basically after he made that statement, he looked at evolution in greater details and realised that he had misunderstood it.
quote:
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:52 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 164 (176614)
01-13-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:23 PM


If evolution were in fact testable and there actually was evidence of it then it would become a fact.
But that's simply untrue. Tested theories with evidence to support them are still theories.
Theories are made of facts; theories don't become fact, ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:23 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 24 of 164 (176628)
01-13-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:38 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
xevolutionist writes:
I actually thought that if something were proven that it would become known as factual.
The problem is probably more vocabulary than anything else. When scientists use the word "proven" in conversation or even in formal papers, as sometimes happen, they probably mean something different than what you think it means. Scientists mean "well supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific commuity at this point in time" when they say proven. When you say proven you probably have in mind a mathematical proof using equations, or perhaps an experiment proving once and for all forever and ever that something is so.
We see this misunderstanding here all the time, and so many of us have grown into the habit of avoiding the problem altogether by saying that theories are never proven, only supported by evidence and accepted by scientists at the current time. That situation may change in light of new evidence or new insights. A theory is tentative and malleable. A theory is intended to be a reflection of the evidence it attempts to explain, and as more and more evidence is gathered the theory is modified to accommodate it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:38 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 4:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 164 (176643)
01-13-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-13-2005 4:26 PM


Level of Confidence
A theory is tentative and malleable. A theory is intended to be a reflection of the evidence it attempts to explain, and as more and more evidence is gathered the theory is modified to accommodate it.
All well and good. However, while discussing tentativeness we should not forget that the degree of tentativeness goes down as more and more evidence is accumlated.
After a time the theory becomes so very accepted that the layman's termed like "truth" and "proven" are close enough to the actual view held by the experts in the field.
There is a wide range of confidence in various scientific models. Some are held with a very, very high degeree of confidence indeed. the ToE is one of those.
We have also neglected to point out to Cosmo that aside from the issues about how evolution happened (the theory part) the fact that it has happened is still there.
We each choose to accept somethings as being a 'good enough' bet as being correct. The level of 'good enough' varies with the individual and the particular case. Almost all those who know anything at all about the facts of the matter would say that betting on the ToE is very, very good bet indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 4:26 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 5:07 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 28 by gengar, posted 01-14-2005 2:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 26 of 164 (176647)
01-13-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
01-13-2005 4:58 PM


Re: Level of Confidence
All very true Ned - however I think that the problem (or rather the point) is that many of use feel hedged (?) in terms of what we outline to some of our creationist chums before we get onto slightly more complex takes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 4:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 164 (176660)
01-13-2005 5:41 PM


Good News, for a Change
On a related note, it appears an Atlanta, GA judge has ruled against the sticker disclaimer in textbooks (ya know, Cobb County's "evolution is only a threory, not a fact"). He described it as "thinly disguised religion", and said the disclaimer violated the Constitution.
Of course, the carpet-chewing-fundies that make up the school board will no doubt appeal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by gengar, posted 01-14-2005 5:51 AM Quetzal has replied

  
gengar
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 164 (176868)
01-14-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
01-13-2005 4:58 PM


An ID lesson plan
I've been thinking about this a bit. How about calling their bluff? Let's talk about ID. But lets do the one thing these school boards don't seem to want to do and look at in scientifically.
When looking at the history of life on Earth, we have the following facts to account for:
(1) Life has changed over time (the 'fact' of evolution).
(2) All life works the same way (common biochemistry).
(3) Genetic relationships between species generally seem to match the patterns seen in the fossil record (common descent).
All evolutionary theory does is look at how life works now (imperfect replication generating variability, high reproduction rates creating selection pressures), and extrapolate over long periods of time/large numbers of generations, and variable conditions.
How about ID then? You can think of several different scenarios for intelligent intervention, in increasing order of directness:
(a) Creation of the first replicating population.
(b) Insertion of new traits into the genome at a particular point or points in time.
(c) Manipulating the whole shebang at a quantum level (the only one, incidentally, which formally requires 'God-like' ID).
(a) is related not to evolution, but abiogenesis. Also, you can't really test for this except by looking for life on other planets. If they had, say, the same genetic code, we might get suspicious.
(c) Is the theist/deist position. God is behind natural processes. Nothing to add scientifically then; all we can do is study these processes and go 'wow' a lot.
Which leaves (b), which could potentially have testable consequences. For instance, intelligent intervention need have no respect for species barriers when tinkering; we might therefore expect intelligently inserted sequences to play havoc with the generation of phylogenetic trees. No-one has found anything like that yet, but there's no harm in looking. Oh dear, no-one who claims to be interested in ID 'science' is. Clearly rather than playing around with mathematically dressed up arguments from incredulity, Dembski et al. should reach for their cladistics primers....
There you go kids. This will hopefully set you on the path to concluding that if God exists, he's a scientist. And much smarter than we are.
{lots added by edit 'cos' I accidentally pressed the submit button}
This message has been edited by gengar, 01-14-2005 02:55 AM
This message has been edited by gengar, 01-14-2005 02:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 4:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
gengar
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 164 (176890)
01-14-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Quetzal
01-13-2005 5:41 PM


Re: Good News, for a Change
How about a sticker for 'Of Pandas and People'?
'An IDea, not a theory.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 01-13-2005 5:41 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 01-14-2005 8:54 AM gengar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 164 (176920)
01-14-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by gengar
01-14-2005 5:51 AM


Re: Good News, for a Change
How about a sticker for 'Of Pandas and People'?
'An IDea, not a theory.'
Hee hee. I like that one! Demand for "equal treatment" indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gengar, posted 01-14-2005 5:51 AM gengar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024