ID and the like VS. Evolution.

[Vandeervecken]

I do not need to for it to qualify for points 3 and 4 which you said had never been tried. They refer to testing, you now claim you want ironclad proof. Shifting your claim and question is not going to cut it, sorry.

 

[Diogenes]

I consider evolution to be an established fact on the micro level of species adapting incrementally to challenges, but it's still a leap of faith to connect dots millions of years apart as with a five-toed "horse" evolving into an animal with a hoof, and even more of a leap to postulate branching into different species. It's plausible, which makes it an acceptable theory, but it is still only a theory.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

but it's still a leap of faith to connect dots millions of years apart as with a five-toed "horse" evolving into an animal with a hoof, and even more of a leap to postulate branching into different species. It's plausible, which makes it an acceptable theory, but it is still only a theory.

1) not really, it's perfectly observable in the fossil record.

2) Just because something is "plausible" doesn't mean it's a theory. It has to be supported by an immense amount of observation and experimentation.


Anyway, evolution should be taught in science, and ID and creationalism in relgions/culture classes.

 

[Diogenes]

1) not really, it's perfectly observable in the fossil record.

2) Just because something is "plausible" doesn't mean it's a theory. It has to be supported by an immense amount of observation and experimentation.

Anyway, evolution should be taught in science, and ID and creationalism in relgions/culture classes.

Agreed that evolution should be taught, but only as a theory. As I noted in an earlier post, the fossil record is incomplete and requires connecting dots that are millions of years apart - it's possibly the result of incremental evolution, but equally likely to be the result of catastrophic environmental changes. (There are bands of fossilized snails in the Atlantic seabed; periodically, every few million years or so, they seem to change orientation from clockwise to counterclockwise and back again, and this seems to be related to sudden reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Needless to say, the records are incomplete and speculation on cause and effect is hypothetical - just like evolution itself.)

Plausibility makes it a theory. If a theory is useful in making predictions, it gains credibilty (as with relativity or drifting continents, for instance), but I'm not aware of any predictions from the theory of evolution which have proven out. Experimentation can prove the theory, but that seems to be out of the question with evolution, at least within my lifetime.

 

[MrFungus420]

Agreed that evolution should be taught, but only as a theory. As I noted in an earlier post, the fossil record is incomplete and requires connecting dots that are millions of years apart - it's possibly the result of incremental evolution, but equally likely to be the result of catastrophic environmental changes. (There are bands of fossilized snails in the Atlantic seabed; periodically, every few million years or so, they seem to change orientation from clockwise to counterclockwise and back again, and this seems to be related to sudden reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Needless to say, the records are incomplete and speculation on cause and effect is hypothetical - just like evolution itself.)

Plausibility makes it a theory. If a theory is useful in making predictions, it gains credibilty (as with relativity or drifting continents, for instance), but I'm not aware of any predictions from the theory of evolution which have proven out. Experimentation can prove the theory, but that seems to be out of the question with evolution, at least within my lifetime.

I'm feeling lazy. This is from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html. The site has the sources.

"Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:


Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982)."

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Agreed that evolution should be taught, but only as a theory.

:rofl
A theory is a lot closer to scientific fact then you seem to realize. The theory of evolution has gone through intense observation and experimentation gone through extensive modification and change, into an extremely close to perfect concept that explains many of the tendencies and other properties in nature.

As I noted in an earlier post, the fossil record is incomplete and requires connecting dots that are millions of years apart -

The fossil record is good source of information that shows the change of certain species over time. It may be "incomplete" insofar as it does not contain every animal that ever lived, but it does prove conclusively that populations do change over time (one of the main principals of the theory of evolution).

Plausibility makes it a theory.

Plausibility would be important, but if a hypothesis is merely "plausible" and has no evidence, then it remains a hypothesis.

 

[Diogenes]

A theory is a lot closer to scientific fact then you seem to realize. The theory of evolution has gone through intense observation and experimentation gone through extensive modification and change, into an extremely close to perfect concept that explains many of the tendencies and other properties in nature.

I agree that the mere existence of niche species is convincing evidence that life adapts (somehow) to the environment available, but I wouldn't call it "extremely close to perfect" as long as there are significant gaps in the fossil record. Ptolemy's terracentric view of the universe served well for over a thousand years, and Newtonian mechanics still serves us well until we get into extremely precise measurements, but both theories have been superseded as "the last word" in their respective fields. IMO evolution should be taught as a theory, the best available explanation for making sense of our observations, but not as "scientific fact" which would have to be subject to replicable experimental verification.

I really think our only difference is over the "penumbras and emanations" (to use Supreme Court terminology) surrounding the word "theory."

 

[-Demosthenes-]

IMO evolution should be taught as a theory, the best available explanation for making sense of our observations, but not as "scientific fact" which would have to be subject to replaceable experimental verification.

As a biologist will tell you, evolution virtually is biology, and is so close to fact that it can easily be considered so.

It should be taught as a theory? Of course, just like the theory of gravity in astronomy, which could easily be explained by the presents of an all-powerful God who simply wills the earth to revolve around the sun. But for those of us dealing with science we will continue (as with evolution) to use the theory of gravity.

 

[The Mark]

As a biologist will tell you, evolution virtually is biology, and is so close to fact that it can easily be considered so.

It should be taught as a theory? Of course, just like the theory of gravity in astronomy, which could easily be explained by the presents of an all-powerful God who simply wills the earth to revolve around the sun. But for those of us dealing with science we will continue (as with evolution) to use the theory of gravity.

I'm not sure it is as close to fact as you seem to think.

However, I will admit that it is the theory with the most proof. But it is almost the only theory presented.......Think about that for a bit.

If most of the kids who may grow up to be our next scientists believe that evolution is so close to truth that they stop trying to find another theory.....it is going to make them poor scientists. After all, if they are taught from the beginning of their life that evolution is fact (not saying that they are, but all the biology textbooks I've read seem to imply that), then when they are researching something, they will automatically apply (probably without thinking) it to their findings. I'm not saying that they all will, but alot of them will........in fact, I think this has already happened to some extent.

Following that logic, it would seem that teaching only evolution in text books would hinder scientific progress.

What I would like to see is a text book that presents all the facts, and wherever evolution is mentioned make sure that students know that it is still a theory and they should keep an open mind. (This might already be the case in some textbooks, but I have yet to see it).

This measure, however, will not completely fix the problem. Teachers and professors should be required to reinforce the fact that evolution is still a theory. I have heard too many stories about teachers and professors that teach a subject and apply their own views to it. This is unacceptable in my view because it has the potential to narrow a students view of things.....And since students are the next teachers and professors, you can see that it might cause a problem.

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not sure it is as close to fact as you seem to think.

I used to teach biology when I was in grad school, and I can assure you that it IS very close to fact. As close as any theory can be; as has been mentioned, evolution is a "theory" in the same sense that gravity is a theory.

However, I will admit that it is the theory with the most proof. But it is almost the only theory presented.......Think about that for a bit.

There's a reason for that. No other hypothesis has been able to attain the level of theory.

If most of the kids who may grow up to be our next scientists believe that evolution is so close to truth that they stop trying to find another theory.....it is going to make them poor scientists. After all, if they are taught from the beginning of their life that evolution is fact (not saying that they are, but all the biology textbooks I've read seem to imply that), then when they are researching something, they will automatically apply (probably without thinking) it to their findings. I'm not saying that they all will, but alot of them will........in fact, I think this has already happened to some extent.

There are lots of "theories" that aren't readily challenged by many scientists. If someone wants to disprove evolution (and they'd certainly be an exalted scientist if they did), they'd have to not only show where it's wrong, but they'd have to explain why evolution has worked so well in standing up to every possible experiment.

Following that logic, it would seem that teaching only evolution in text books would hinder scientific progress.

Not as much as it would hinder scientific progress to imply that evolution and intelligent design are somehow on the same level of proof, and that there is some kind of debate among scientists as to which is correct.

We don't teach children stupid alternate hypotheses to OTHER theories. Why single evolution out?

What I would like to see is a text book that presents all the facts, and wherever evolution is mentioned make sure that students know that it is still a theory and they should keep an open mind. (This might already be the case in some textbooks, but I have yet to see it).

Practically everything in a scientific textbook is a theory. Do you expect disclaimers next to every sentence?

This measure, however, will not completely fix the problem. Teachers and professors should be required to reinforce the fact that evolution is still a theory. I have heard too many stories about teachers and professors that teach a subject and apply their own views to it. This is unacceptable in my view because it has the potential to narrow a students view of things.....And since students are the next teachers and professors, you can see that it might cause a problem.

You have a distinct misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

 

[The Mark]

I used to teach biology when I was in grad school, and I can assure you that it IS very close to fact. As close as any theory can be; as has been mentioned, evolution is a "theory" in the same sense that gravity is a theory.

I agree with you, for the most part.

There's a reason for that. No other hypothesis has been able to attain the level of theory.

True, but that does not mean there are none out there.

There are lots of "theories" that aren't readily challenged by many scientists. If someone wants to disprove evolution (and they'd certainly be an exalted scientist if they did), they'd have to not only show where it's wrong, but they'd have to explain why evolution has worked so well in standing up to every possible experiment.

Quite so. What I was trying to say was that scientists should always keep in mind that it is a theory.

Not as much as it would hinder scientific progress to imply that evolution and intelligent design are somehow on the same level of proof, and that there is some kind of debate among scientists as to which is correct.

We don't teach children stupid alternate hypotheses to OTHER theories. Why single evolution out?

I was not saying evolution was on the same level as some ID-like hypothisis.

What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't teach children the facts and then present them with only evolution as the possible reason for them. This, in my mind, would seem to push them towards thinking that it was fact or almost fact.

I think there was at least one scientist (saw him on the news, who knows, I might be mistaken) that debated which was correct.....so there is a debate among scientists. Not a large one, I grant you.....but still a debate.

And, BTW, I do not think ID is a valid theory or even a valid hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture than anything else.

Practically everything in a scientific textbook is a theory. Do you expect disclaimers next to every sentence?

Good point, I didn't think it through enough. But I do think their should be disclaimers at least once in each chapter that would require them.....say near the end or begining. And they should not be only for evoloution, but for all theories.

Something along the lines of "This was a theory, therefore it might not be true"......or something to that effect.

And If I remember correctly, one of my physics textbooks (and I think all physics textbooks), had a disclaimer of sorts about Newton's theories being proved wrong in some cases. And they always told me in class that it was a theory and that their were other theories that disproved it partially.....or contadicted each other.

So I don't see why, if they have it for physics, they can't have it for biology.

You have a distinct misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

I do not think so, but it is possible. However, you have inspired me to look it up. Hopefully, if I have some misunderstanding, it will disappear shortly.

 

[The Mark]

Very interesting link describing theory. Any who are confused as to it's definition, please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

[nkgupta80]

Very interesting link describing theory. Any who are confused as to it's definition, please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

What I was trying to say was that we shouldn't teach children the facts and then present them with only evolution as the possible reason for them. This, in my mind, would seem to push them towards thinking that it was fact or almost fact.

see here is where you err. Everything in high-school science is taught as fact. Why? because you must build up the knowledge and skills before you can break them and work around them. Einstein and subsequent physicists didn't break from classical physics without having an extremely thorough understanding of classical Newtonian Mechanics. This is why we teach kids in high-school whatever is accepted in science. This goes on in undergrad, where you continue building ur knowledge in areas of science. When you have mastered what is accepted in the science community, then you go on to become a real scientist, to do research, to pose ur own questions, to test the validity. You examine where the problems lie, and you pose ur own hypotheses and predictions.

Now in regards to evolution, like any well established theory, it is pretty much the standard of biology today. No other "theories" if there are any (sorry, intelligent design is frankly not science), come close to explaining the phenomena of the world. If there were, both would have been presented.

 

[The Mark]

see here is where you err. Everything in high-school science is taught as fact. Why? because you must build up the knowledge and skills before you can break them and work around them. Einstein and subsequent physicists didn't break from classical physics without having an extremely thorough understanding of classical Newtonian Mechanics. This is why we teach kids in high-school whatever is accepted in science. This goes on in undergrad, where you continue building ur knowledge in areas of science. When you have mastered what is accepted in the science community, then you go on to become a real scientist, to do research, to pose ur own questions, to test the validity. You examine where the problems lie, and you pose ur own hypotheses and predictions.

Now in regards to evolution, like any well established theory, it is pretty much the standard of biology today. No other "theories" if there are any (sorry, intelligent design is frankly not science), come close to explaining the phenomena of the world. If there were, both would have been presented.

All of what you say is true, as far as I can tell.

The problem is that people who believe in ID or something like it DO NOT believe some of the facts. Or rather, come up with other ways that you could arrive at said facts.

For example, let us say some scientist says something along the lines of "This fossil used to be such-and-such a creature that died 1 billion years ago, give or take 50 thousand or so."

Now, a person who wanted to believe in creationism would say something along the lines of "GOD could have made it look like it was really old, but it actually is only 4000 years or so." Or something more complicated that has the same effect.

Now, I must admit that I was raised believing in a higher power, and until I went to college I was home schooled, which allowed my parents to teach me what they believed. I still believe in a higher power to some extent, but I have questions that I have problems answering with creationism or ID or something.

Must look into this more, getting interesting.

 

[Diogenes]

Teachers and professors should be required to reinforce the fact that evolution is still a theory. I have heard too many stories about teachers and professors that teach a subject and apply their own views to it. This is unacceptable in my view because it has the potential to narrow a students view of things.....And since students are the next teachers and professors, you can see that it might cause a problem.

That is indeed the core of the problem.

The Miocene epoch is presented as a time when there were vast grasslands, populated by large herds of grazing animals preyed upon by huge wolves - but exactly where did it exist, and how extensive was that scenario? The answer is at the Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, on the upper reaches of the Niobrara River in western Nebraska. All of the fossils for that period are found in two little buttes; I walked around them both and was back at my car in 45 minutes. The ranger there told me that some of the same fossils are found in buttes for a couple of hundred miles around, but the Monument is the only place to find them all. It seems like a very narrow snapshot from which to draw generalities.

The generalities make a good story, but a close examination of the evidence (including the age estimates) leaves the observer with the impression that there is much work to be done before the theory is declared to be factual in all respects. I can still remember the graffitti "Alfred Wegener is a drifter" from back before plate tectonics became an accepted theory, and Evolutionists sound every bit as defensive as those who ridiculed the idea of rafts of rock floating on the earth's core.

 

[Columbusite]

I'll just put an excellent quote here since it applies just as much to ID.

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. " Judith Hayes

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I say BOTH the theory of evolution and the notion of Intelligent Design be taught in school.

What's the purpose of science classes in school, anyway? Clearly it should teach more than basic facts. A basic fact is that a dropped object falls to the ground at a constant acceleration. That basic fact is basically useless.

Most "basic facts" are fairly useless. Let's have the kids memorize the table of physical constants and send them off to college. Let's have them recite taxonomic classifications by rote, and give them an "A" in biology. They don't need no stinkin' theories, right? Sure would be a lot easier on the teachers, and cheaper for the taxpayers, too.

As you can tell, I just love it when the fools say that something is "just a theory", then try to sound intelligent. Good theories are carefully crafted works of art. They require skilled observation, a quick mind able to see connections not considered before, to make a good hypothesis, and that same mind has to be thinking not only of what this theory might mean, but it has to figure out possible flaws and identify ways to refute the theory.

So we need to teach evolution, there's a lot of good science to be learned in the tortuous path the theory of evolution followed from it's Lamarckian roots to Darwin to today's understanding of genetics and chemistry, with the predictions and the possible falsifications that have not yet happened.

Then you teach ID, identifying all the areas where it ISN'T a theory, and why it's not science, but religion.

There's no way the two should be treated as equals, of course not. That would be like teaching the phlogiston theory of fire as the equal of the modern theory of combustion. (Which could be another place to teach the development of a proper theory, I suppose)

If the errors of religion aren't taught in school, when will they be taught?

 

[Kandahar]

I say BOTH the theory of evolution and the notion of Intelligent Design be taught in school.

What's the purpose of science classes in school, anyway? Clearly it should teach more than basic facts. A basic fact is that a dropped object falls to the ground at a constant acceleration. That basic fact is basically useless.

Most "basic facts" are fairly useless. Let's have the kids memorize the table of physical constants and send them off to college. Let's have them recite taxonomic classifications by rote, and give them an "A" in biology. They don't need no stinkin' theories, right? Sure would be a lot easier on the teachers, and cheaper for the taxpayers, too.

As you can tell, I just love it when the fools say that something is "just a theory", then try to sound intelligent. Good theories are carefully crafted works of art. They require skilled observation, a quick mind able to see connections not considered before, to make a good hypothesis, and that same mind has to be thinking not only of what this theory might mean, but it has to figure out possible flaws and identify ways to refute the theory.

So we need to teach evolution, there's a lot of good science to be learned in the tortuous path the theory of evolution followed from it's Lamarckian roots to Darwin to today's understanding of genetics and chemistry, with the predictions and the possible falsifications that have not yet happened.

Then you teach ID, identifying all the areas where it ISN'T a theory, and why it's not science, but religion.

There's no way the two should be treated as equals, of course not. That would be like teaching the phlogiston theory of fire as the equal of the modern theory of combustion. (Which could be another place to teach the development of a proper theory, I suppose)

If the errors of religion aren't taught in school, when will they be taught?

I agree with most of this. I don't have any problem with intelligent design being taught in some kind of history/meaning of religion class. My main quarrel is with the people who want it put in biology books (except maybe as an example of how the scientific method does NOT work).

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Plausibility makes it a theory.

It does? Just how "plausible" is quantum mechanics, anyway? A particle can be nowhere and everywhere at the same time? The vacuum of sub-microcopic space is seething with particles that simply appear out of nowhere then disappear? A particle is also wave? Schroedinger's cat is alive and well and dead, until you look at him?

Nothing at all is plausible about quantum mechanics, but it's the most predictively accurate theory we've ever developed.

What's so plausible about assuming an invisible indetectable spirit guides events on earth?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I agree with most of this. I don't have any problem with intelligent design being taught in some kind of history/meaning of religion class. My main quarrel is with the people who want it put in biology books (except maybe as an example of how the scientific method does NOT work).

Well, no, of course not. If it's to be included in a science class, it has to be discussed openly and thoroughly, of course.

I'm not averse to schools having a formal and objective religion class, either.
I think teaching Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism side by side without preferential treatment would do wonders for this country.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Following that logic, it would seem that teaching only evolution in text books would hinder scientific progress.

--- Rofl ---

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not averse to schools having a formal and objective religion class, either.
I think teaching Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism side by side without preferential treatment would do wonders for this country.

I completely agree. It's such a big part of our history and culture that I think students who don't have a background in religion are really missing an important part of their education.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The generalities make a good story, but a close examination of the evidence (including the age estimates) leaves the observer with the impression that there is much work to be done before the theory is declared to be factual in all respects. I can still remember the graffitti "Alfred Wegener is a drifter" from back before plate tectonics became an accepted theory, and Evolutionists sound every bit as defensive as those who ridiculed the idea of rafts of rock floating on the earth's core.

But you treated Earth in Upheaval as something valid back in Post #20. Didn't you read Velikovsky's book? Velikovsky totally sneered at plate tectonics because far too much of what Velikovsky describes in Upheavel as catastrophic in origin can be easily explained by plate tectonics.

And, of course, one should never forget the notion Velikovsky was pushing, ie, that Venus was a long period (~50 years) earth orbit crossing, comet whose near collisions with earth he used to explain the events of the Exodus.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I completely agree. It's such a big part of our history and culture that I think students who don't have a background in religion are really missing an important part of their education.

They certainly can't understand what "Moors" are, and why the Crusades happened, to name just two critical concepts.

 

[Diogenes]

Nothing at all is plausible about quantum mechanics, but it's the most predictively accurate theory we've ever developed.

I think you are confusing "plausible" with "intuitively obvious" when you bring in quantum mechanics. I agree there is nothing intuitively obvious about relativity or quantum mechanics, but the predictive accuracy makes it plausible. Evolution, on the other hand, has been supported on this thread by the intuitively obvious method of connecting the dots of the geological record, but there have been no examples presented of evolution accounting for the differentiation of species.