Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural-ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : SPECULATION 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light> 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTUREc: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete: FEATb: CRIME <accessory after the fact> carchaic: ACTION 2archaic: PERFORMANCE, DOING 3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact: in truth
Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.
My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.
If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?
I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.
Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.
It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".
A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.
Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.
It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".
A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.
Ron
It should include the scientific definition of Theory (with a capitol "T") which is a field of study; atomic Theory, quantum Theory, physics Theory, evolution Theory, etc.
My high school taught a class called "music Theory". I told one of the students in that class (a creationist) that they shouldn't teach music that way because music was "only a theory that had never been proved and never will be proved". He didn't think I was very funny at all.
I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.
*snap dictionary quote*
Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.
No, but in science a theory is as close to fact as you can get with the current observations. A theory can also be negated by other evidence. This is something you ignored. It has to be falsifiable. Creationism has been falsified, it can never be seen as close to fact, because it just doesn't fit the observations.
My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.
If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?
I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.
Creation is fact. We are here, hence we are created. Yes. Now about the method of creation.
Evolution is fact and theory. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. We have observed speciation. Evolution in that sense is fact. Plain and simple.
Evolution is also a theory. We theorize that all species are descendents from the same organism. We also theorize about the methods of evolution. Now the important part. If a theory has enough facts to back it up, it becomes nearly a fact. This is what happened with the all species descended from a single ancestor. Various explanatory mechanism on how evolution happens also have attained this status.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
And yet the article quotes otherwise. Are you reading into it what is not there? I do not purpose to you that evolution is false, or that there is no evidence that might suggest that it is valid, only that the evidence is not conclusive and for this I get accusations? This idea, that the article itself states? For this I am told I did not read the article in question? I did not realize before this thread, how far off evolutionists are in their belief system.
Where? I haven't seen it quote otherwise. Is it the quote that you gave? I already explained why it didn't say what you said it did? Did you understand that explanation?
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.
It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".
A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.
Ron
Again, you prove my point. Evolution is theory, not fact.
No, but in science a theory is as close to fact as you can get with the current observations. A theory can also be negated by other evidence. This is something you ignored. It has to be falsifiable. Creationism has been falsified, it can never be seen as close to fact, because it just doesn't fit the observations.
Creation is fact. We are here, hence we are created. Yes. Now about the method of creation.
Evolution is fact and theory. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. We have observed speciation. Evolution in that sense is fact. Plain and simple.
Evolution is also a theory. We theorize that all species are descendents from the same organism. We also theorize about the methods of evolution. Now the important part. If a theory has enough facts to back it up, it becomes nearly a fact. This is what happened with the all species descended from a single ancestor. Various explanatory mechanism on how evolution happens also have attained this status.
According to the definitions presented, how can evolution be a fact and a theory unless we change the definition? I can twist much of the so called evidence to support ID if I so want to, for most of the data does not prove evolutionary theory, but rather that the theory is possible. That is not the argument made, whether or not it is possible. The argument is whether or not it is fact and even the scientists you present do not claim it as fact when looking at the traditional definitions of theory and fact.
I disagree with ron that once something stands up to falsifacation it is fact. Germ theory is still a theory even though it has stood up against falsifacations. A theory has nowhere farther to go beyond a theory. (remember though, a scientific theory (like evolution) is different from the common place use of theory or guess.)
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Again, you prove my point. Evolution is theory, not fact.
It should include the scientific definition of Theory (with a capitol "T") which is a field of study; atomic Theory, quantum Theory, physics Theory, evolution Theory, etc.
My high school taught a class called "music Theory". I told one of the students in that class (a creationist) that they shouldn't teach music that way because music was "only a theory that had never been proved and never will be proved". He didn't think I was very funny at all.
I have no problem with teaching theory in school, as long as it is taught as theory, this includes music theory and evolutionary theory. In fact, I think it stimpulates learning to examine different theories and explore why they cannot be fact. It is an exercise in creative, critical thinking. Bravo for teaching theory in the classroom. Just make sure it is taught as theory.
I have been trying to find time to thoroughly read this thread, figure out where you are coming from, and join the discussion. This is the first time I have been able to. And actually I have not read the whole thread. Only your posts. So excuse me if I repeat replies you have already heard.
What I want to do first is see if I understand your position.
I seem to be hearing three messages:
a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, I’ll spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.
a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)
a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.
Which brings me to the second message I think I am hearing from you: b) The lack of overwhelming evidence for evolution means it is a theory. Because it is a theory, it is not a fact.
Does that fairly reflect your opinion?
Third message: c) There are three theories on the origin of species: creationism, intelligent design and evolution.
Is it correct to note that these are not mutually exclusive theories? e.g. ID may (does?) include elements of both creationism and evolution. Both creationism and ID include elements of evolution.
Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method. I expect others have been trying to explain some of the errors in your thinking about this.
Now for a couple of quick comments.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
I do not accept science as having overwhelming proof of evolution because science is an interpretation of the data and as such, can have more than one interpretation.
Basically, you are right, of course. Science seeks to interpret or “make sense” of data. In principle, more than one interpretation is possible. When scientific consensus coalesces around a single interpretation, it is because that particular interpretation makes better sense of the data than any competing interpretation. Currently, the theory of common descent (aka evolution) makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists working in the field who have intimate knowledge of the data.
(Please note the emphasized section. It expresses as best I can, the actual scientific criterion for backing one theory rather than another. I expect to come back to it many times.)
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.
Again, in principle you are right. All three offer an interpretation of data, and in that sense can be called theories. However, there is another step to be taken before the scientific community endows an interpretation with the title “theory”. That step is examining how well the theory predicts data.
In other words, starting from the theory, what data can one deduce that ought to exist---and does the data that the theory says ought to exist coincide with the real-life data that does exist?
The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?
On that basis we can make the following evaluation of the three theories.
Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.
ID is at best an unsupported theory. It predicts data which may exist, but it has not been established that it does exist. On a more philosophical level, it also fails to explain the existence of less than optimum design in many species.
Evolution (common descent) is a robust theory. The data which it predicts must exist, do exist. In several cases, such data was found after it was first predicted. Some predicted data has not been discovered yet, but of all similar data which has been discovered, none has failed to support the theory of evolution. Unlike the other two theories, the theory of evolution is useful in its practical applications and in directing future research.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
In fact, if I did believe in the evolutionary theory, I would still be having this discussion with you. Theory is theory, not fact!
Again, you are right as far as it goes. The theory of evolution is a theory which explains or interprets data. The theory of evolution is an explanation of facts, not a fact in itself. However, what you are missing is that part of the data which the theory interprets are the observed instances of evolution!
In short, we know evolution happens because we have observed it happening. That evolution happens is a fact. And it is one of the facts which the theory of evolution tries to make sense of.
Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Please explain what you mean by self-correcting. It would seem to me that you are saying that the theory of evolution is always changing according to what science knows.
Yes, theories change when new data requires a change. Theories are dynamic. Most theories have gaps and imperfections in them when first proposed. They do not adequately explain all the facts they are supposed to explain. And, of course, they cannot be expected to explain facts which are yet to be discovered. Since facts, data, always trump theory—when there is a discrepancy between an observation and the predictions of the theory, work begins on seeing what amendments are needed to bring the theory in line with the facts.
That is scientific method---to always give priority to the data and modify the theory to fit the data, not shoe-horn the data into the existing theory. That is why scientific theories are always provisional, at least in principle.
Are you reading into it what is not there? I do not purpose to you that evolution is false, or that there is no evidence that might suggest that it is valid, only that the evidence is not conclusive and for this I get accusations? This idea, that the article itself states? For this I am told I did not read the article in question? I did not realize before this thread, how far off evolutionists are in their belief system.
Linear Mode
