the theory of gravity was constructed to explain an unknown force that can be experimented with, and constantly tested yielding the same results. Theories in evolution do not share these qualities. If they did, there wouldn't be any debate in the manor in which things evolved. How many theories of gravity are they? Because there are multiple, constantly changing theories about evolution one must excessive faith in order to believe, what they believe to be true.
Where else can changing truths not require faith to be excepted?
1. There are multiple theories of gravity.
Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is a theory of gravity at the "macro" level, a theory of gravity at the quantum level, and multiple hypothesis at the fringes of both of those theories.
2. The reason there is such an issue with evolution is that some religious fundamentalists don't like that it contradicts some of their religious beliefs, and thus have decided to take it upon themselves to fight evolution at every step, regardless of how utterly wrong they are. Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in all of Science.
3. Evolution has plenty of facts that are tantamount to the existence of gravitational force: genetic change, natural selection, artificial selection, speciation, gene duplication, chromosome duplication... All of those are facts regarding evolution that scientists have observed with their very eyes and have experimented on just like gravitation.
According to the article i left on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread from the National Academy of Science there are different versions. It states that Changes in the theory are to be expected... these "changes" in fact make the old version different from the new version... It's like saying that the 19641/2 Mustang is the same as the 2010 Mustang... Other than the Name and the shared History the refinements over the years make the 2010 a completely different car... By your logic because they share a name and both are considered to be a car they must be the same..
No. You're not even close.
The fundamentals of The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (to use your analogy these would be comparable to major things in a car, like the chassis, the body, the engine, the transmission etc.) have stayed the same: genetic changes, natural selection, artificial selection, speciation, gene duplication, chromosome duplication. Those are the fundamentals of evolution and scientists have observed all of them with their very eyes.
The changes that occur regarding evolution involve
minor details. Separate theories from the Theory Of Evolution to do with minor details relevant to the process of evolution*
NAS Article said:
Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being discerned. Scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution
They are not comparable to a 1964 mustang changing to a 2010 Mustang. They are comparable to taking that 1964 Mustang and adding some fluffy die on the rear-view mirror. Minor details. Moreover, whenever Science can nail down one of those aspects, the theory is updated and the previous one is discarded. It's not like the previous one keeps bouncing around in the ether. The old theory becomes the new and improved theory; still only one. And I'm talking about theories regarding phenomena relevant to the mechanisms and overall process of evolution, not the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection itself.
*Please be aware, evolution is an overarching concept encompassing many theories in many different feilds of science. And there is the Theory Of Evolution itself; which is evolution via natural selection. Other theories of evolution, such as lamarckism, which argued offspring will inherit traits derived from the behaviour of parents (eg once upon a time giraffes had shorter necks, they started stretching their necks to reach food so their offspring were born with long necks) have been disproven and discarded for many years now. There are no scientists proposing lamarckism anymore.
Also be aware that scientists proposing hypotheses' or unproven details of theories (hypotheses' and unproven details of theories are two different things) which are disparate with other hypotheses' or unproven details of theories do not do so out of belief or faith.
Rather
rainycity said:
When there's debate among which explanation is correct, the debate is because different lines of evidence seem to support different explanations.
so lets say some biologists observe some phenomena in a lab, which is evidence for a certain hypotheses (an explanation based on what's been observed). Some biologists at a different lab somewhere else in the world might observe something else, and they propose an explanation. That explanation/hypotheses might contradict the other biologists in the other lab's hypotheses, however these hypotheses' are only going on the evidence which is observed. They are not going to argue with the other scientists because they believe their own hypotheses, rather both groups will accept
whichever hyopotheses is proven by the most evidence* (read: proven by
scientific facts, no not all evidence is scientific facts, however a hypotheses can only be proven by scientific facts). And remember scientific theories (hypotheses' which have been proven) don't grow up into laws - scientific theories already contain laws.
*even if for some reason one or other of the hypothetical groups believed their own hypotheses' and refused to accept the other hypotheses which has more evidence, the evidence for both hypotheses' would be peer reviewed and thus the hypothesis proven by scientific facts would be accepted by the scientific community at large.
Why do you think are we revisiting this? why do think you have a need to refortify this position when it is evident that your beliefs are incorrect? (According to the NAS)
We're revisiting this because you are either ignoring and/or not reading much of what I'm saying, or you have poor reading comprehension (your interpretation of the NAS article also indicates poor reading comprehension):
I've made it clear more then once that there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, scientific theories can be updated and certain details of scientific theories can change, however those details which can be changed are not scientific facts, and scientific theories themselves are not the same as scientific facts; scientific facts cannot change.
Evolution and natural selection are scientific facts, and rather then saying I 'believe' in evolution and natural selection, I'd prefer to say I trust them as scientific facts, as any sane person trusts scientific facts. No faith is required.
You didn't seem to have issue lumping all facts into the truth category just a few posts ago.. Look at you rigorous defense of facts in my Innocent man being convinced by untrue facts, analogy..
I defended scientific facts:
Your analogy doesn't even support what you're claiming. In a trial facts are presented yes, and if an innocent man is sent to prison, it's not the facts that are wrong, it's the conclusion we're making that was wrong. Two very different things.
Juries have to make decisions with incomplete sets of knowledge. That they make an erroneous decision (i.e. it happens that they convict an innocent man) does not mean the knowledge they had was incorrect, it means that it's incompleteness might have given a different impression. If the crime scene investigators found - among other things - blood on the floor ( which would be a fact), and they jury reached a guilty verdict but it turned out he was innocent it doesn't magically mean there was no blood on the floor; the fact stays the same: there was blood on the floor. It just means they were missing other facts (like he had cut himself with a knife, or had an accident, etc.). The facts aren't changing, the conclusion is simply getting better as new facts/information comes to light.
if the carpet with blood on it was presented in the trial, with results of chemical testing proving its human blood, this meets the standard of a scientific fact. If this is used as evidence to find the defendant guilty of murder, when in fact he is innocent and the blood on the carpet was his own blood, then the conclusion that the defendant is guilty is wrong, but the scientific fact there was blood on the floor doesn't change. The prosecutors missed the fact that the defendant had an accident and it was his own blood. If forensics had tested the blood and found that it was the defendant's blood, they could have presented this scientific fact to the court, and the blood couldn't be used as evidence that the defendant is guilty. No conclusions can change any of these scientific facts, scientific facts cannot change under any circumstances.
I did not defend allegations or stipulations, only scientific facts.
What do you think happened between then and now?
I can tell you what i saw, you were confronted with a truth that you could not spin or ignore, so you simply went to a point in your argument before you were completely committed to this line of reasoning, and then took it in a completely different direction.. you did this by trying to change the argument from "facts" to "Scientific fact."
I'll quote your very own words:
"Science is a fact based Faith and Christianity is a Faith or trust based faith." I believe I said that back in the beginning of this mess.
Your argument has been about scientific facts from the very beginning. You're the one who's claiming that scientific facts are statements which can be true or untrue, proven or disproven. The only definition of fact that is relevant here is what is considered a fact in science, or scientific fact.
I showed you the definitions of fact and the specific definitions that describe scientific fact. ie:
"3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth."
Fact Definition | Definition of Fact at Dictionary.com
You are relying on semantic definitions of 'fact' relevant to colloquial contexts, but totally irrelevant to scientific context.
As far as I know, in the USA and other democracies, a scientific fact (proven, cannot change, cannot be disproven), if presented in a court of law by prosecutors as evidence against a defendant, is treated as an allegation, which is formality, because it is being used to build a case against the defendant....however technically, the scientific fact on its own is not an allegation, the way it's being used/interpreted is the allegation. The scientific fact is, however, considered in a court of law to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's in a court of law though, not in a scientific context.
In a scientific context, as a formality nothing is treated as absolute certainty, I'll give you that. However, in a science a scientific fact is '
confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' In other words,
proven beyond any reasonable, sane doubt.