I promised Percy I would only put topics through the "proposed" section of the site so even though this is clearly a fairly trivial topic belonging obviously to the Coffee House, I shall keep my word
Only a fool 'keeps their word' when they know they're incorrect. It would be better to acknowledge your previous over-zealous statement then to continue being wrong in order to 'keep your word.'
First Quiz - 42% -I thought I did worse. My answer was "I don't know" to almost every question.
Second Quiz - 92%
Third Quiz - 12/13
So then do creationists understand the ToE, but perhaps just don't value it like you do?
If a creationist understands the ToE, but does not value it as much as any other fact, such as "the earth is round." Then they are simply denying reality. Whether or not they find value in 'denying reality' is up to them.
But I don't think it's as black and white as some evolutionists make out. I believe there are many creationists like me, that understand your theory but simply don't accept it is true and believe on logical grounds it runs short of the mark.
If it were true that evolution had fundamental logical issues, or didn't represent reality to the best of our knowledge... then it wouldn't be a scientific theory in the first place. Same with any and all other scientific theories.
My belief is that there is a strong connection between disinterest in a subject and ignorance of it.
This is very true. However, even if a group is disinterested and ignorant of an idea, it doesn't make that idea false in any way. An idea would be true or false depending on how it relates to reality. Since evolution relates very well to reality, we currently regard it as true.
I believe in all honesty, if the boot was on the other foot, evolutionists would generally score low if there were tests to understand the creationist arguments from creation scientists.
I think it would be difficult to find a creationist argument that was equally 'understood by creations scientists' as it was 'true to reality.' Fortunately for evolution theory (and every other theories of science), science is the study of reality. Therefore what's 'understood by science' is always 'true to reality' (as far as we can tell with the available information.)
You take things too personally. (Could very well be my fault, I'm not a very good writer.) It wasn't intended to be a personal comment about you.
I didn't argue that disinterest makes something false, which would be disbelief basically, which is the fallacy of an argument from incredulity.
And I never said that you did argue such a thing. Again, you took the comment too personally or combatively. I wasn't arguing against you, I was just stating an idea.
For example is a steady state theory reality or monera or spontangeous generation because science is "the study of reality".
None of those are reality. No existing theory in science today is reality either. Evolution theory is not reality. Theory of gravity is not reality.
What are you arguing against?
I don't think you understood what I said. Here, I'll bold the important part for you this time:
quote:Therefore what's 'understood by science' is always 'true to reality' (as far as we can tell with the available information.)
It all depends on what information we have available to us. As that information grows and changes, so do our understandings. Getting closer and closer to reality.
mike the wiz from evolutionfairytale writes:
ARE SOME TYPES OF SCIENCE INHERENTLY WEAKER?
By their nature yes
This is absolutely correct.
But 'evolution theory' isn't one of the weaker (younger/newer/less information available) sciences. It's one of the stronger sciences. The only thing that makes a science strong or weak in this context is the amount of available information we have for the idea in question.
For example it was concluded Rhodocetus had a tail fluke and was ancestral to whales, but the finder of the organism later admitted it probably was a land animal for various anatomical reasons, proving that the type of forensic reconstruction for evolution, can be weak, especially with argued transitions.
Exactly. Science is self-correcting. That's why this issue was self-corrected. That's why evolution theory is one of the stronger sciences. It has been self-corrected for many, many years now and is rather strong in it's core theory.
To put it in a more meaningful context, the chances of downforce existing have to be 99.999999%, and the chance of linear momentum existing must be 99.9999999% but really we all know they do exist, we have a reasonable knowledge they do
You are conflating facts with theories.
Down-force and linear momentum are descriptions of facts. Like 'the sun warms my skin' and 'robins eat worms' are facts.
Evolution theory is an explanation of a (large) group of facts. Facts like fossils, genes and procreation. Newton's theory of motion is an explanation of a (large) group of facts. Facts like down-force, linear momentum and gravity.
Your personal experience of motion-related facts and evolution-theory have no affect on evolution being a strong scientific theory. Again, the only thing affecting how strong or weak evolution theory is how much information about it is available. Since there's lots of information over many, many years... it's a strong theory.
Regardless of whether or not 'we all know they do exist.' Such common-knowledge-of-the-population facts are irrelevant to the knowledge of the scientists doing science with the information available to them.
but to say the chances of evolving from slime, after an abiogenesis from mud, is an equal chance, because they are both science, is incredibly naive, and exceedingly poor reasoning based on generalisation fallacy.
This is true.
No one says abiogenesis is as strong as evolution in scientific evidence. The available information on abiogenesis is not at the same level (yet).
But, of course, this has no impact on the theory of evolution being a strong science. It has no impact on abiogenesis being good science. It has no impact on abiogenesis being our closest-to-reality explanation according to the available information. It has no impact on our ability to gain more information on abiogenesis and adapt it into a strong scientific theory as well, one day.
Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.
Oh... me me me, pick me!!
Peek to read:
Will have to check with Mod to be sure, but I'm guessing he's talking about the "most abundant gas in the air" question. It's the one I got wrong. And I've gotten it wrong multiple times in my life (at least 2, and I think maybe more). The reflex is to go with Oxygen because we all breathe it. The answer, however, is of course: Nitrogen.
My science knowledge is pretty weak... I don't think about or go over any such facts in my general life. However, I have a fairly good understanding of things I know, and things I don't. For this question, my normal answer would be "I don't know... let's go look it up." And a 2-second google search would give me the correct answer. Because of this always-available-encyclopedia-in-my-pocket I rarely retain facts I don't deal with on a regular basis.
But... searching google would be going against the "good-faith-idea" of the test. So I just answered as best I could at the time. And was wrong again, for the same reason again
But, just wanted to give mike something of what he asked for and see where he went with it. Since he doesn't seem to be going down the route of "better on the test = smarter person" or anything like that... I think the tests are just there as a fun kinda-related antic associated with his main point:
That some creationists exist that understand evolution theory... but just don't think it's the best explanation.
I agree to a point. Any person (creationist or not) that understands evolution theory... but doesn't think it's the best explanation either:
1. Has some additional information available to them that current scientists do not. (Doubtful, but possible... also, a Nobel Prize winning event.)
2. Does not understand science or how/why science works.
Of course, I don't study biology in any way. I have a general understanding of the over-arching principles... but that first test deals with a lot of specific facts. Those are simply out of my area of knowledge.
I also don't think such specific facts are necessary to have a very good understanding of how evolution generally works as a scientific theory.
But, really, if I ever wanted to know those facts... I'd look it up on google and get the answer quite quickly, I would assume
The other two... I see the same issues Mod suggested: that some of the answers, if the questions are taken strictly and literally, are easily argued to be the 'wrong' answers.
You can score 100% all the time on all these quizzes. It doesn't mean anything if you don't understand why science works - the self-correcting, study of reality using repeatable evidence as a guide. It may or may not be "100% reality" at any time, and we would never know even if it was. But it does, constantly, get closer and closer and closer and closer and closer and closer...