Bad science?

Then, why has it been so hard to turn the Theory of evolution into Law?

---

Lan

Because the term "law" isn't used any more is the biggest reason. It is an old fashioned term.In addition, if you look at what we do call laws, they are more focussed and much, much less encompassing than modern theories are.Newton had his "laws" of motion (actually without any real "theory" explicitly stated). They are simply equations describing the way bodies move. Einstein has his equations describing the same thing but they are not called laws they are embedded in the two theories of relativity and the theories make broader statments than just those equations. We will probably never call the equations of relativity "laws" even though they are more accurate than Newton's equations.I suppose one could liken some population genetics equations to Newton's laws of motion and call them population "laws" but, as noted, that isn't done any more. The theory itself if much more encompassing than any such details anyway.

Because when the word "law" is used, it is used to describe mathematical formulations from which precise calculations can be made, and from which no known process deviates. For this reason, "law" is mostly used in the physical sciences.Of course, "law" is occasionally used in other contexts besides what I have just claimed, but that goes to show that there is no real good, precise definition of "law".

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

In addition, as implied in both Science and Theory, things are held tentatively and may be changed or modified as new information, new evidence is found. Some things, like Young Earth or Biblical Creationism are falsified and so they then are simply tossed in the wastebin and we go on. Other things such as a complete understanding of how Evolution happened are subject to change, revision, evolution and improvements.Science is a matter of winnowing, truth is held tentatively but that which is false is discarded.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I need a definition of "falsified". Would't that be more realistically called a "difference of opinion? Waste basket? Or refusal to allow debate and reinterpretation of the evidence? I didn't notice any basis for this "opinion".Lan

---

Lan

In science, when we talk about falsification, we are talking about observation, evidence or data that disconfirms the idea or hypothesis. The best falsifications are when you have multiple, completely independent lines of investigation or evidence that ALL disconfirm the idea (such as genetics, geology, biogeography, physics, marine engineering, oceanography, materials science, etc etc, all falsifiying one or more aspects of the Noachian Flud hypothesis). Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

Quetzal,
Thanks for the sort of definition -- though without specifics. I would recommend a book for you that answers ALL these sciences. You have probably been through THE GENESIS FLOOD. I believe Dr. Morris was a hydrologist among others. This book probably was the origin of the re-emphasis that creation and the flood have a creditable response to the origin theories of the majority of scientists and their opinions. Once again, it comes down to opinion based on the unchangeable evidences.Please excuse me as I respond to CHIROPTERA. As to the state of public education, I am a throwback not an advocate of how science is taught in schools. You might call me a dinosaur of sorts. I believe in the examination of ALL theories and allowing the students to be able to draw their own conclusions. Would you advocate this approach in education?

Hi, Eagles. Welcome to EvC -- sorry I forgot the welcome earlier.

quote:

---

I believe in the examination of ALL theories and allowing the students to be able to draw their own conclusions. Would you advocate this approach in education?

---

Do you really believe that ALL theories should be taught? Do you think that time should be spent on the Flat Earth theory? Or Holocaust Denial should be presented in a history class as if it were a legitimate contender for the truth? Or do you accept that in some instances there really isn't a competing theory, and the "alternative" should be presented to the students as a case study on how personal belief and political motivations can lead people to accept nonsense in spite of all the clear facts and evidence?I have no problems with presenting legitimate alternative theories -- in fact, common sense would demand it -- as long as the alternatives really are scientific alternatives. Creationism simply is not scientific. It is a religious dogma that is held despite the evidence to the contrary. As far as biology is concerned, the theory of evolution has not only been confirmed again and again for over a century and a half, there are no alternatives.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

If you would like to resurrect an old thread concerning the Flud, or participate in the current one (concerning insect diversity), I'd be happy to provide specifics on which of those sciences disconfirms the idea. This really isn't the thread for it, and the Omniscient Admins tend to frown on discussions that pull threads too far off topic.Other than that, were there any "specifics" you were looking for?

Still need to know how to handle your second registration. It can be merged with the one you are using and made an alias. We do not allow mutiple registrations though.Please let me know how you want to handle it.

---

Will drop the original registration. You can change your password in your profile.

Just 1 1/2 centuries? Creation in written form has been around for 4000 years give or take. The oldest documentation of many societies confirm creation, not just the Hebrew Bible. Sorry, I can't discount history even though no human was around to record either. the nearest we come to a historian is someone you don't want to rely on. That was the Creator.My main purpose with going into this is to let the younger ones on this forum know that there is an alternative to accepting a theory just because most scientists accept it as factual rather than just another human opinion based on their perception of the evidence.

---

Lan

Yea, yea we've heard this dozens of times. Now just open a thread that presents some detailed evidence, discusses the consensus scientific position on this and then offers a consistent, complete altenative. This is what scientists do when they disagree with an interpretation.We ask this everytime some brings up the "interpretation" thing. It isn't answered at all well. Usuall bare assertions with no reasoning given. I presume you are going to do better?

That's all very nice as far as your religion goes, but what does that have to do with science? And why are you bringing it up?You could also try asking yourself what difference it makes how long an idea has been around. After all, nature worship in various forms has been around quite a bit longer than your religion. Does that mean we should all sacrifice goats to propitiate thunderstorms?

Religion and science? One real and one dead? To reply to your challenge, let me first ask you to define religion. This is a loaded question. Be careful.

---

Lan