Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution as Fact and Theory
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 22 (81602)
01-30-2004 12:23 AM


Page not found | Harvard Square Library
Part of Stephan J. Gould's essay:
quote:
The basic attack of the creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their complaints against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is therefore meaningless and self-contradictory, a superb example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is"only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of sciencethat is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Now some of the above might be a bit extreme. But I say it is a fact that the universe, the earth, and the nature of life on earth has changed down through time. That's evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Explaining the processes of those changes are the theories of evolution.
Fact and theory.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-30-2004 7:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 22 (81624)
01-30-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-30-2004 12:23 AM


Moose,
Just a small, but important, editorial adjustment, to:
But I say it is a fact that the universe, the earth, and the nature of life on earth has changed down through time. That's evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Insert the words, "a part of" between "That's" and "evolution," and "That part of" before "Evolution...."
Evolution is the theory of mechanism, whatever else Gould might think. Darwin was quite specific about this, putting it into the title of his statement: natural selection, as opposed to artificial selection. Some of Darwin's insights, that many things took a long time, involved a "selective" process, descendency, inherited traits---really very valuable for the times. But it was bad science to make such a radical change in the accepted theory of the day, that the God, Jehovah, that most people were then crediting with the origin of biologic diversity, could be left out of the picture entirely. That men, supposedly made in the image of this God, created biologic diversity through artificial selection, only justified the new hypothesis that they were reflecting their Maker's way of working, that God, also, created through artificial selection.
Facts, as Reagan realized, are theories that have become so plausible, so dependable in making confirmable predictions, that we can use them to effectively solve practical problems. As the Nazi's tried to do with evolution. The Mennonites, correcting Darwin's and Hitler's mistakes, are having much greater success with the "artificial selection" version of the theory. Slowly, slowly, just appeal to the great Artificial Selector in the heavens. Then what you see as the "master race" will peacefully emerge, will grow in numbers to populate the world, and see it ruled in peace, love, and prosperity. A vast improvement on the "Great Awakening" non-Darwinian type of believers, who kept, and keep wanting to snap-snap take over and change the world, in six days.
Stephen
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-30-2004 12:23 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 8:09 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 01-30-2004 8:12 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 22 (81627)
01-30-2004 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-30-2004 7:41 AM


quote:
But it was bad science to make such a radical change in the accepted theory of the day, that the God, Jehovah, that most people were then crediting with the origin of biologic diversity, could be left out of the picture entirely.
No it was good science. Darwin's theory was (and is) the best possible explanation of the observation of biodiversity and its origins. Creationism was not the most widely accepted theory of the day because it was never a scientific theory. It was a religious belief, never testable, never falsifiable and never supported by evidence. In Darwin's own time, there were also non-creationist concepts in the scientific community that were scientific hypothesis but were contradicted by the evidence and abandoned. A testament to the success of evolutionary theory is that since Darwin, particularly with the molecular biological revolution of the last 20 years, more and more evidence supporting evolution has been gathered, the theory still stands unchallenged scientifically, and sciences understanding of the mechanisms, particularly genetic, underlying evolution has increased tremendously. Creationism on the other hand, has not progressed at all. It is still stuck in exactly the same place as it was during Darwin's time and the same exact objections and whining that Darwin and his supporters experienced then are the same lame brained arguements today...you guys are going nowhere.
quote:
Slowly, slowly, just appeal to the great Artificial Selector in the heavens. Then what you see as the "master race" will peacefully emerge, will grow in numbers to populate the world, and see it ruled in peace, love, and prosperity.
This appeal to the concept of the "master race" makes it sound like you are a supporter of nazi ideology. I would not be surprised as in some of your posts your claims about evolutionary theory are replete with eugenicist fallacies.
And if anyone is having success in reproducing it is the non-christians as the Chinese and Indians have a much higher and faster growing population than any other group. The Mennonites are a small isolated clan..hardly a great example to pick. Maybe you should be worshipping Vishnu...his followers have higher fitness
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-30-2004 7:41 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 11:54 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 4 of 22 (81629)
01-30-2004 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-30-2004 7:41 AM


old creationist ploys!!!
quote:
Evolution is the theory of mechanism, whatever else Gould might think. Darwin was quite specific about this, putting it into the title of his statement: natural selection, as opposed to artificial selection.
natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolutionary change. it is not the sole mechanism--sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.--all interact at some point. some of these processes do not lead to genetic diversity--genetic drift, for example.
evolution is not just natural selection.
quote:
Facts, as Reagan realized, are theories that have become so plausible, so dependable in making confirmable predictions, that we can use them to effectively solve practical problems. As the Nazi's tried to do with evolution.
the misuse of a scientific theory/technology does not mean the theory/technology in and of itself is dangerous or wrong. people have used the "teachings" in the bible to commit unspeakable acts--witchburnings, crusades, slavery, to name a few. should we throw out the whole bible b/c some people used it for a way it was not intended?
quote:
Slowly, slowly, just appeal to the great Artificial Selector in the heavens. Then what you see as the "master race" will peacefully emerge, will grow in numbers to populate the world, and see it ruled in peace, love, and prosperity. A vast improvement on the "Great Awakening" non-Darwinian type of believers, who kept, and keep wanting to snap-snap take over and change the world, in six days.
ah, yes. the appeals to heaven on earth--as long as you are following MY religion.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-30-2004 7:41 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 12:07 PM hitchy has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 22 (81795)
01-31-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mammuthus
01-30-2004 8:09 AM


M.
You say,
Creationism was not the most widely accepted theory of the day because it was never a scientific theory. It was a religious belief, never testable, never falsifiable and never supported by evidence.
This is what I call a dogmatic opinion.
This appeal to the concept of the "master race" makes it sound like you are a supporter of nazi ideology.
The deepest evil is always a perversion of the deepest good, partly because it destroys that good as a goal to achieve. Humans are inclined to prejudice, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "master race" is in quotes because it is the term the evil used for the concept of a "holy people." What we want, what is good, is the idea that there will be a people, ruling and in charge of a land in which other people who choose to be Nazi's or evil in some other way in their views and heart can exist in the culture while not being able to express or activate those views in a way hurtful to those they want to hurt. True believers in creation believe in a Creator, who will take care of evolutionists His own way. Evidently that is by causing them to not want to breed and multiply. In one fell swoop, this ridicules them because the theory they say they believe in is all about breeding successfully, and eliminates them eventually, because they don't multiply.
India is interesting! China, too. According to missionary reports, both places have a great interest in Jehovah and Yeshua, and a great distrust of Christianity.
S.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 8:09 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 22 (81798)
01-31-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hitchy
01-30-2004 8:12 AM


Re: old creationist ploys!!!
Hitchy,
You,
evolution is not just natural selection.
Agreed.
the misuse of a scientific theory/technology does not mean the theory/technology in and of itself is dangerous or wrong. people have used the "teachings" in the bible to commit unspeakable acts--witchburnings, crusades, slavery, to name a few. should we throw out the whole bible b/c some people used it for a way it was not intended?
I'm not throwing out the good things evolution has contributed to our thinking. Are you preserving the good things creation theories have contributed?
ah, yes. the appeals to heaven on earth--as long as you are following MY religion.
"MY religion" sounds like dogmatic opinionation, which no one should ever follow, period. Biblical religion is quite simple: take care of widows and orphans, and don't let the evil (stains) of the world affect you or your behavior. For example, don't let stupored (hence, stupid) people make you ignore the good that can be accomplished through prayer.
Stephen
I'm not throwi
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 01-30-2004 8:12 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by hitchy, posted 02-02-2004 3:43 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Drahzar
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 22 (81919)
02-01-2004 1:00 AM


quote:
Facts, as Reagan realized, are theories that have become so plausible, so dependable in making confirmable predictions, that we can use them to effectively solve practical problems. As the Nazi's tried to do with evolution.
You need to state which usage of Facts and Theories you are using here, because if you are talking about scientific facts and theories, this is completely wrong. There is a theory of gravity, and there is the fact gravity exists. They are two seperate things. The fact is that if you let go of an object in the air, it will fall. The theory tries to explain why. Even if every single person agreed that the theory worked every single time, it's still a theory (not "just" a theory, a theory). One cannot change into the other.

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 8 of 22 (82196)
02-02-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-31-2004 12:07 PM


creation theories!?!
quote:
I'm not throwing out the good things evolution has contributed to our thinking. Are you preserving the good things creation theories have contributed?
what good comes from trying to marry science and religion?
creationism is not, and by definition, cannot and will never be science! in science, the evidence leads and we follow. creationism treats the bible as objectively true (which of course it is not) and then accepts or makes up or misinterprets the evidence that supports biblical creation and ignores the evidence against it.
quote:
For example, don't let stupored (hence, stupid) people make you ignore the good that can be accomplished through prayer.
nothing fails like prayer. for example, after watching george carlin one night, i began to pray to joe pesci. somethings i prayed for came to pass, others did not. the stuff i had immediate control of, of course, happened. the stuff that i had partial input on, some of it happened, some didn't. the stuff i had no control over, did not happen. i also tried meditating and on stressful days when i cannot get to the gym, i still meditate. i feel better, more relaxed, calmer, quieter. both of the above situations can also happen if i pray to jesus, moses, abraham, mohommad, vishnu, shiva, buddha, or joe pesci. prayer is in the same place god is...in the eye of the beholder.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 12:07 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-03-2004 9:52 PM hitchy has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (82418)
02-03-2004 12:41 AM


That was a powerful opening argument. The author THINKS that evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact. Irreducible complexity is a fact. All you need is one thing to tip over the whole applecart of evolution. Like the Paluxy river prints. "Poof". End of evolution.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Macavity, posted 02-03-2004 1:13 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 1:16 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Macavity
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 22 (82429)
02-03-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 12:41 AM


Advice
Hello, q3psycho!
Welcome to EvC. In another thread I noticed that you referenced Answers In Genesis as a source to refute evolution. I am curious, have you put in much time browsing through AiG? Here is their position on the Paluxy river prints:
Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existedsee Q&A: Dinosaurs.
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
This may come as a surprise to you, but this Paluxy claim has been refuted many, many, oh-so-very-many times on this forum. Try using the forum search function---or, better yet, take a look at what Talk.Origins has to say about the Paluxy tracks.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Enjoy!
--Macavity
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 12:41 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 22 (82430)
02-03-2004 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 12:41 AM


quote:
Intelligent design is a fact. Irreducible complexity is a fact.
And your evidence for this is? Even the lead ID theorists admit it is not a complete theory, and in its infancy. How does this allow you such grand claims?
quote:
All you need is one thing to tip over the whole applecart of evolution. Like the Paluxy river prints. "Poof". End of evolution.
Well you actually need more than that to get your own theory accepted. You are correct that evolution can be overturned if evidence accumulates which it cannot include in its model. That is why it is good science.
But if/when you manage to tip over evolution, that would not mean your favorite theory becomes the default scientific theory.
You will have to present your theory and it must be able to handle the data from many diverse fields.
You must also make sure (when trying to tip the cart) not to confuse debunking a particular mechanism, with debunking the entire ToE. There are many large chunks of modern evo theory that can fall without ending the ToE itself.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 12:41 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 22 (82450)
02-03-2004 2:01 AM


Hi guys. One thing at a time. first the paluxy prints:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
So this is direct evidence and we should look at it for ourselves and make a decision.
As far as irriducible complexity, if you cut my liver out I'm going to have a heck of a time living. So that means we were created with a liver.
Now, intelligent design means that if it wasn't evolved then it was designed. So you are right though that we still need to see if it was by the Christian God or by one of the false prophets.
That's probably another topic to do. This one is on evolution.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 2:06 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 3:56 AM q3psycho has not replied

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


Message 13 of 22 (82454)
02-03-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 2:01 AM


As far as irriducible complexity, if you cut my liver out I'm going to have a heck of a time living. So that means we were created with a liver.
You need to take this to the Intelligent design threads.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=t...&

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 2:01 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 22 (82458)
02-03-2004 2:13 AM


OK thank you nosy ned. I'll look at the ID thread.
I read the page saying the paluxy tracks were controversial. But the page I showed has the photographs. Your page doesn't have any photographs. Look at 3B. it sure looks like a man print inside of a dinosaur print.

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


Message 15 of 22 (82485)
02-03-2004 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 2:01 AM


One thing at a time. first the paluxy prints:
Just so you know, both the Institute for Creation Research and the Answers in Genesis folks have determined that the Paluxy prints are not evidence of creationism, because they're not human footprints.
Most of them are actually obscured dinosaur tracks that, with proper cleaning, are readily identifiable as such. Some of them are simply depressions with no sign of an instep or arch, that only appear human with selective highlighting.
Some of them have been visibly altered in a fraudulent attempt to make them look human. As a result the tracks have been repudiated by all but the most gullible/dishonest/misinformed creationists. You'd be wise to do the same, I think.
Thanks to CC101: Paluxy River footprints
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 2:01 AM q3psycho 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