The Undesigned Designer

[xianghua]

I understand this argument.

As a contrast, what if an alien ship landed on this planet. How would you detect that it was designed if it looked like nothing ever man-made from this earth? How would you detect that it was not a natural formation of unknown origin from elsewhere in the universe?

good analogy. we can add to this the self replication trait and organic components. in this case according to evolution logic we need to conclude a natural process.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

good analogy. we can add to this the self replication trait and organic components. in this case according to evolution logic we need to conclude a natural process.

Actually, any conclusion only comes after adequate evidence. There is nothing to conclude in this vague hypothetical. The answer is "we don't know" until we have evidence to back up a claim.

 

[JDD_III]

And you could also conclude that the only evidence for begetting life we have is...life begetting life.

We have no instances of non-life begetting life.

Therefore you could conclude for life to exist, a life had to beget the first life.

Yet science does not conclude that - it concludes that non-life beget life. With absolutely zero evidence for it.

 

[Speedwell]

And you could also conclude that the only evidence for begetting life we have is...life begetting life.

We have no instances of non-life begetting life.

Therefore you could conclude for life to exist, a life had to beget the first life.

Yet science does not conclude that - it concludes that non-life beget life. With absolutely zero evidence for it.

Science has not "concluded" it, only hypothesized.

 

[JDD_III]

Science has not "concluded" it, only hypothesized.

Therefore it is reasonable to hypothesize a form of life started the first life.

 

[Speedwell]

Therefore it is reasonable to hypothesize a form of life started the first life.

Sure. Why not?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

And you could also conclude that the only evidence for begetting life we have is...life begetting life.

We have no instances of non-life begetting life.

Therefore you could conclude for life to exist, a life had to beget the first life.

Yet science does not conclude that - it concludes that non-life beget life. With absolutely zero evidence for it.

The origin of life is a mystery for now. Nothing has been "concluded." And stating "life begets life therefore a life had to beget the first life" is not a sound argument. On its own it refutes itself. To avoid the infinite regress of "life begetting life" you have to carve out an exception for that first life. Feel free, but you're left with nothing more than some special pleading and bald assertions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's not an evasion. The theory definitely appeals to facts. What we observe in the fossil record, morphology, genetics, and so on and on...and on. The Theory of Evolution just gathers up all the data from all of the fields and tries to make it coherent as an overall explanation.

The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain the facts of gravity. So it is a fact that we refer to the force that keeps us mostly tethered to the Earth as gravity. Nobody disputes the force exists. The Theory of Gravity is a way of explaining why and how it happens...it's not meant to prove that it happens. So yeah, the Theory of Gravity won't go on to become the fact of gravity. It'll only become better at describing elements of gravity.

So if you refer to the definition of hypothesis you posted, you'll see why this example is a hypothesis. After his experiment it is a fact that this kind of paper can burn under the right circumstances, yes. He can go on to develop a theory that explains exactly why it happened. Paper can burn: FACT. Explanation of why the paper can burn based on the data: THEORY.

I hope that helps to clarify what I meant.

Why does the dictionary define the term hypothesis and theory as the same thing, when you and another poster say they have different meanings?

 

[Speedwell]

Why does the dictionary define the term hypothesis and theory as the same thing, when you and another poster say they have different meanings?

Because the dictionary gives the meanings used in common speech rather than the specialized language of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the dictionary gives the meanings used in common speech rather than the specialized language of science.

That must drive scientists up a wall, doesn't it?

They'll lobby to get the Ten Commandments out of public view, but won't say a word about "sunrise" or "sunset;" unless one finds a passage of Scripture that seems to indicate that, then they're all for it, since they can use it to say the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because the dictionary gives the meanings used in common speech rather than the specialized language of science.

So I hear.

Is evolution a theory a fact or hypothesis?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That must drive scientists up a wall, doesn't it?

'

That or it's purpose is to drive the creationist up the wall.

Funny thing though, these words have always been scientific terms, so I would have to wonder why either the dictionaries or the scientist weren't on the ball in their defining them.

Also, either the terms have changed or they have not, regardless were they're used

 

[Speedwell]

So I hear.

Is evolution a theory a fact or hypothesis?

Evolution is a fact. Life on Earth has changed and diversified since it first arose.

The theory of evolution, which purports to explain how that came about through variation and natural selection, is a theory.

The proposition that life first arose by natural means from non-living material is an hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

'

That or it's purpose is to drive the creationist up the wall.

Funny thing though, these words have always been scientific terms, so I would have to wonder why either the dictionaries or the scientist weren't on the ball in their defining them.

Also, either the terms have changed or they have not, regardless were they're used

But we're not trying to trick you, just explain to you how scientists are used to using the words, as an aid to promoting clear discussion. We're not responsible for any misinformation you may have picked up, from the popular press, or bad science teachers or creationist websites, or for things you simply don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny thing though, these words have always been scientific terms, so I would have to wonder why either the dictionaries or the scientist weren't on the ball in their defining them.

Probably because they didn't rig votes back then, or pay off cruciverbalists and lexicographers to get their definitions into the dictionary.

Back then they had [a little more] morals than they do today.

Thanks to today's dictionaries, you can't tell the difference between a miracle and magic, a child in the womb has become a fetus, and morals and ethics are basically the same thing.

Say IN GOD WE TRUST or ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and they have no idea what God you're talking about.

 

[Speedwell]

Probably because they didn't rig votes back then, or pay off cruciverbalists and lexicographers to get their definitions into the dictionary.

Back then they had [a little more] morals than they do today.

Thanks to today's dictionaries, you can't tell the difference between a miracle and magic, a child in the womb has become a fetus, and morals and ethics are basically the same thing.

Say IN GOD WE TRUST or ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and they have no idea what God you're talking about.

What difference does it make? The theory of evolution is just the name we give to the explanation of a process. Names don't change it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we're not trying to trick you, just explain to you how scientists are used to using the words, as an aid to promoting clear discussion.

Let's test that theory, shall we?

The Bible says Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

What does that mean, according to standard and/or scientific definitions?

Or do you even know?

Turn that verse into a ... (ha ha) ... 'clear discussion.'

 

[AV1611VET]

What difference does it make? The theory of evolution is just the name we give to the explanation of a process.

What process?

There are seven consecutive processes under the umbrella of evolution.

Which one(s) promote 'clear discussion'?

 

[Speedwell]

What process?

There are seven consecutive processes under the umbrella of evolution.

Which one(s) promote 'clear discussion'?

In this discussion we are talking about biological evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's test that theory, shall we?

The Bible says Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

What does that mean, according to standard and/or scientific definitions?

Or do you even know?

Turn that verse into a ... (ha ha) ... 'clear discussion.'

Science has nothing to say about Jesus or His Gospel. Do you go to an auto mechanic when you want spiritual guidance? An accountant? Then why would you seek it from science?