Someone please correct these longheld but maybe mistaken beliefs of mine:
Darwin was specifically explaining biological evolution and somewhere even wrote that his work should not be expanded out into any kind of cultural or social application. Maybe he wrote about biological evolution and someone else pointed out that he didn't cover social or cultural aspects?
And that if he had any role in the holocaust it was specifically because others misinterpreted his works to apply on a social and cultural scale. So that his connection to the holocaust was: Darwin --> Eugenics --> holocaust. Where eugenics was the social misapplication of his biological theories.
If, as some of those defending the movie claim, the movie was supposed to be about the hegemony of dominant theories in current science, then they failed miserably by picking such a contentious subject with which to point this out. They could have used any number of other examples toward the same end, but happened to choose evolution? C'mon... there's for sure a creationist agenda behind the movie, to try to deny it is to be as stubborn as the movie claims scientists are.
For that matter, is unquestioning adherence to one theory (creationism) any different than unquestioning adherence to another theory (evolution)?
There is a science mafia, however, and it is realized in the politics of funding. People need to eat and keep a roof over their heads, and if their income is dependent on a theory being true, you can bet they will fight any threats to their livelihood with everything they've got before admitting that the basis for their life's work is flawed...
KrisPistofferson
05-01-08, 01:41 PM
Yo Kris - You are stating that evolution is a *theory because it is "called" a theory ? !
How come you say that calling it a theory makes it a theory when "the scientific process/method" technically defines it only a good scientific hypothesis ? .... e.g., A. Can one observe the process of macro (species to species, aka speciation) evolution.... B. Can one re-enact speciation by multiple independent parties, AND then get the same fully analyzed results.... and the list goes on.
Please look up 'the' scientific process, aka 'the' scientific method, when you feel you wish to consider this topic with an open, educated and objectively critical scientific method mindset.
The word theory has a lot of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
According to the National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
Science still has no term for "ideas arrived at using religious faith and/or no facts." Maybe someday they will just to categorize Creationism and ID. Also, you seem to imply that if something doesn't happen within our short lifetime, so it is outside of an individual's direct observance, than it is beyond knowing. Well, by that logic I decree the Civil War never happened, and you weren't there so your opinion is just as good as mine. That's stupid. Here, read this: http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/655.html
There are plenty of other examples of observable evolution within a human's lifetime, (drug resistant bacteria, etc.) If what you really want is an amoeba to turn into a man in a month, then you're just being intellectually dishonest. Like saying seconds turn to minutes, but seconds never turn into years. Also, it sounds a lot more reasonable than "A magic man in the sky did it in 6 days."
Mr York
05-01-08, 01:42 PM
I believe our now useless appendices are a prime example of how we are evolving. No more bark or leaves on my system.
I read recently that the appendix does have a use. It stores an inoculation of good gut bacteria for times when the normal population is killed off due to disease like cholera. If that happens, the population living in the appendix repopulates the rest of the gut, or "reboots the digestive system" as mentioned in this article.
We may wind up loosing it after all anyway since we live in dense populations now and can get the bacteria from contact with other people. Something we couldn't do in the past when we lived in more isolated circumstances.
Mr York
05-01-08, 01:46 PM
Darwin --> Eugenics --> holocaust.
Luther probably had more to do with it than Darwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews
KrisPistofferson
05-01-08, 01:48 PM
For that matter, is unquestioning adherence to one theory (creationism) any different than unquestioning adherence to another theory (evolution)?
Creationism would at best be a hypothesis made by a fool, not a theory, and the reason the two aren't given the same weight is the same reason we do not put Albert Einstein and Rev. Sung Myung Moon on an equal intellectual level.
Brillig
05-01-08, 01:50 PM
For that matter, is unquestioning adherence to one theory (creationism) any different than unquestioning adherence to another theory (evolution)?
Yes. Absolutely.
Similar to how unquestioning adherence to the Theory of Tea Leaf Reading is different from unquestioning adherence to the Theory of Gravity.
mconlonx
05-01-08, 02:01 PM
Creationism would at best be a hypothesis made by a fool, not a theory, and the reason the two aren't given the same weight is the same reason we do not put Albert Einstein and Rev. Sung Myung Moon on an equal intellectual level.
Yes. Absolutely.
Similar to how unquestioning adherence to the Theory of Tea Leaf Reading is different from unquestioning adherence to the Theory of Gravity.
I must be having a hard time expressing myself--that was meant toward creationists, not you evolutionists. The rest of the thread clearly expresses what ya'll think of the differences between the two "theories," I was not unclear on that, just that the other side refuses to accord evolutionists the same thing they think evolutionists should grant them.
I wouldn't put Albert Einstein and the Rev. Moon on the same level regarding politics and spirituality for that matter, nor would I ever try to gain the same insight from gravity that I might find in tea leaves.
Arguing science in terms of religion is about as sensible as arguing religion in terms of science. Both are like arguing on the internet...
BikePackin
05-01-08, 02:18 PM
[Source: Encarta On-Line]
Scientific Method:
Term denoting the principles that guide scientific research and experimentation, and also the philosophic bases of those principles. Whereas philosophy in general is concerned with the why as well as the how of things, science occupies itself with the latter question only, but in a scrupulously rigorous manner*.
In other words, we, as scientists, are not given the freedom to call something a “theory”** until it passes the following – prior to passing these parameters a concept or notion is entitled a “hypothesis” (this is accepted universally throughout the scientific profession):
[Source: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method]
*Scientific method:
The universally-accepted, organized approach to the study of science, which consists of the following steps:
1. Observation - information or record secured by viewing or noting a fact or occurrence
2. Research - diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise; investigate carefully
3. Hypothesis - forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data.
4. Testing - test the hypothesis by collecting more data.
5. Results - interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected. The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
6. Conclusion - stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others. A method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses. The method used by scientists to validify their observations in an experiment by proving (or disproving all other possibilities) a hypothesis that they have made. The hypothesis may change throughout the experiment as new data and evidence is obtained.
**Theories
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
**Theories
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
Please refer to my earlier post. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption you are saying something.
KrisPistofferson
05-01-08, 05:05 PM
[Source: Encarta On-Line]
Scientific Method:
Term denoting the principles that guide scientific research and experimentation, and also the philosophic bases of those principles. Whereas philosophy in general is concerned with the why as well as the how of things, science occupies itself with the latter question only, but in a scrupulously rigorous manner*.
In other words, we, as scientists, are not given the freedom to call something a “theory”** until it passes the following – prior to passing these parameters a concept or notion is entitled a “hypothesis” (this is accepted universally throughout the scientific profession):
[Source: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_method]
*Scientific method:
The universally-accepted, organized approach to the study of science, which consists of the following steps:
1. Observation - information or record secured by viewing or noting a fact or occurrence
2. Research - diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise; investigate carefully
3. Hypothesis - forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data.
4. Testing - test the hypothesis by collecting more data.
5. Results - interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected. The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
6. Conclusion - stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others. A method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses. The method used by scientists to validify their observations in an experiment by proving (or disproving all other possibilities) a hypothesis that they have made. The hypothesis may change throughout the experiment as new data and evidence is obtained.
**Theories
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
This doesn't conflict with my post at all, your tortured misreading notwithstanding. The Wikipedia and Encarta excerpts basically prove that Evolution is a theory that has stood the test of time, and that Creationism is a silly hypothesis that no one would have even heard of if not for political machinations and pulpit-pounding, not scientific inquiry.
What you are trying to imply is that a human being in a lab coat has to sit down and watch several million years of evolution, (hopefully with bathroom breaks!) until it "proves" anything, ignoring data from geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. Thanks for playing. Also, please explain how my "theory" that the Civil War never happened is on a level playing field with the fact that it did take place. Have fun with it, though.
KrisPistofferson
05-01-08, 11:25 PM
So far, everyone has strawmanned evolutionary theory and made bizarre unfounded assertions about "Social Darwinism," which is completely unrelated to biology, instead of actually talking about the alleged scientific basis of Intelligent Design/Creationism. This is page 3 guys. It might be time to start talking about the hard science behind ID that will shake the planet and make all the godless atheists try to assassinate you, don't you think? Or do you just have nothing?
Mr York
05-01-08, 11:54 PM
Would have been nice to have hard science behind ID in the movie as well. But the agenda is not to show ID is a sound theory. Instead the idea is to "teach the controversy" as laid out in the wedge strategy the Discovery Institute wrote up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations) campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_the_public), popular media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media), charitable funding agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_%28charity%29), and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
"To defeat scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic) understanding that nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) and human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being) are created by God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)"There are three "wedge projects," referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:
Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.
Don't expect much more than propoganda, the film is a shining example of that and shows they are "staying the course" when it comes to the wedge strategy.
TRaffic Jammer
05-02-08, 06:10 AM
Stay tuned to K-RST - The WEDGE. I saw a news report about the creationist museum here in Canada, dinosaurs hanging out with mankind.... hahahahahahahaha 6000 years. With no explanation of how we manage to carbon date just about everything (incl a couple things in my fridge) to be older than that.
benjdm
05-02-08, 07:20 AM
It might be time to start talking about the hard science behind ID
All the hard science behind ID has been covered in this thread.
Here, I'll list it again:
TRaffic Jammer
05-02-08, 07:32 AM
The Italian Observatory (The Pope's summer getaway), run by the Jesuits, which teaches astrophysics to grad students th world over is a pretty interesting contradiction to many. I saw an interview with the head of the dept and he gave an interest POV as to how science AND faith can go hand in hand..... Keeping in mind he's not a Creationist.
red house
05-02-08, 12:08 PM
Yo' people... Darwinian evolution is no longer a ''theory'' - it is a well established THORY .... I thought that was covered already in my post #18 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6609961&postcount=18).
srsly.. it's like nobody even read it. Quit arguing with facts.
late
05-03-08, 06:05 PM
Yo' people... Darwinian evolution is no longer a ''theory'' - it is a well established THORY ....[/url].
Thory, God of Blunder?
Srsly,
Science survived the Inquisition, even if some of the scientists did not.
In terms of the real world, religious kooks matter less than fleas. Seriously... a recent court decision was both thorough and scathing of attempts to push religion into schools, and will make a powerful precedent. Scientists pay attention to the work, not kooks.
So what is left is a fool's play, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
red house
05-05-08, 08:31 AM
Thory, God of Blunder?
Srsly,
Science survived the Inquisition, even if some of the scientists did not.
In terms of the real world, religious kooks matter less than fleas. Seriously... a recent court decision was both thorough and scathing of attempts to push religion into schools, and will make a powerful precedent. Scientists pay attention to the work, not kooks.
So what is left is a fool's play, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Oh.My. God...
you just compelled me to type my word ''thory'' and the word 'god' into the google search engine - and for some reason this --> http://www.thegodtheory.com/ link came up (at the top of the page).
On the home page of the link it reads;
This "Thinking Outside the Box" Bestseller Could Change Your Life.
''Can you have faith in Einstein, Darwin and God?
Can you have spirituality without religion?
Is there a grand purpose for your life?''
:eek: -?
Are they reading my thoughts again? .. or is it the visa-versa at work? ... what's going on here? I should be getting some royalty checks here... for something. I need to post everything I write - when I write it -- as 'proof' that I wrote it. Instead I waited like a month or two or maybe three before posting that 'thory' piece... I almost did at the time.. I just had second thoughts. (it was deemed 'too crazy' for P&R.. I did not submit :P -? ).
BikeGuitarist
05-13-08, 05:50 PM
I notice that some of the posters here mistakenly assume that evolution is just a theory.
This is wrong. Evolution is as much a FACT of nature as gravity is, or electricity. There is as much evidence that evolution happens as there is that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa.
Darwin pointed out the FACT of evolution and proposed his THEORY of Natural Selection to explain that FACT. Since Darwin's time, evolution has been examined, observed and tested by generations of scientists and thinkers. There was enough evidence for evolution in Darwin's time for people to say "Duh, why didn't I realize this sooner?" There is so much MORE evidence now that to deny the reality of the FACT of evolution shows pure ignorance.
I wrote a song a long time ago called Evolution (http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/songs/evolutio.htm) (free mp3 download available from the lyrics page). I am still amused and a bit dismayed at the stupidity of so many people about this subject. To their credit, most of the people who don't accept the FACT of evolution have been misinformed. To argue for equal time for creationism (by whatever name it goes by now) in a biology classroom is just as ridiculous and just as wrong as to argue for equal time for the flat earth theory in geology or astronomy classrooms.
Short form: Evolution is a fact. A theory of evolution is a theory. Learn the difference.
You'll just have to face the fact: you're related to a monkey!
TBG
red house
05-16-08, 12:40 AM
^^ nah... no. non. uh-uh! ... guitar dood, I already redefined the word to make it a FACT. It was done by the time we reached post #18 of this thread... by now you are merely being redundant by repeating this 'point' - without attributing it to me - for having actually been the one to redefine it in a more definitive way. I demand proper acknowledgement for having been the one to clear up the confusion here. I don't think that's too much to ask.. You people are pretending like you are oblivious to my contribution here - when I am the one who actually invented a ****ing word to provide the 'Darwinian evolution' concept - with a much a better fit and focus for what it actually represents. .. I am the greatest. I shook down the world... I'm kind of like Jesus - only not so preachy.
BikeGuitarist
05-16-08, 08:55 AM
^^ nah... no. non. uh-uh! ... guitar dood, I already redefined the word to make it a FACT.
Theories and facts are different things. Theories explain facts. Gravity is a fact. There are theories by Newton and by Einstein to explain the fact of gravity. Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain various aspects of evolution.
Your posts are quite amusing, and it is a good idea to point out as you did that evolution is a fact, but inventing a word that sounds like "theory" and redefining it to mean fact can only confuse the issue. The words "fact" and "theory" already exist and are quite sufficient for what they define. The problem is that the colloquial definition of "theory" is quite different from the scientific definition.
My post is not redundant, because while other posters quibble over the meaning of the word theory I point out that evolution is a FACT and there are theories to explain that fact. If I may use your word, with all due credit and kudos to you, evolution is a "thory" and there are theories to explain that thory.
Thanks.
red house
05-16-08, 11:50 AM
My post is not redundant, because while other posters quibble over the meaning of the word theory I point out that evolution is a FACT and there are theories to explain that fact. If I may use your word, with all due credit and kudos to you, evolution is a "thory" and there are theories to explain that thory.
Thanks.
Thanks man.. that's really all I ask. And imo - it's not that much... it's just a simple word of acknowledgement.
paix. :)
cooker
05-16-08, 12:48 PM
Why can't we replicated the tech that built pyramids?
The main reason why the pyramids seem so puzzling is because we have an annoying tendency to forget that humans several millenia ago were pretty smart and sophisticated and had lots of resources and complex societies. They had engineers, draftsmen, crew supervisors, and thousands of volunteers, paid labourers and slaves. They had decades or centuries of time.
I remember how there was this mystical awe about the fact that the base of the great pyramid is almost precisely level, with only what - a quarter inch difference in elevation between one side and the other. How could they survey and lay stones so precisely over such a distance? Simple explanation - they leveled it using as a guide a trench full of water they dug all around the base. The surface of the water automatically levelled itself and the base stones were laid parallel to it.
And the ratio of the horizontal and vertical height of one of the pyramids is exactly pi. Wow, they must have had supercomputers to calculate that, and they must have worshipped pi as a God-like number.
Nah. They used measuring wheels. They rolled out so many wheel turns for the base, and they measured so many wheel widths for the height. Bingo! Pi.