Why you should stop believing in evolution

rugcat said:

Sometimes it's news.

Like when the face of JC appears on a grilled cheese sandwich in Toronto.

Click to expand...

Good point. But half the time that turns out to be Willie Nelson, manifesting His presence.

Manuel Royal said:

Good point. But half the time that turns out to be Willie Nelson, manifesting His presence.

Click to expand...

Willie Nelson only manifests himself when it's made with smoked cheddar or provolone.

Mmmmm, Willie sammiches! Makes me feel like I'm on the road again.



Okay, that was bad.

Is evolution still a theory, or is now in fact a law? There is a difference.

As for the supermarket strawberries, how is hybridization of a fruit by humans evolution?

blacbird said:

Creationists love the use of the word "belief", because, to them, it means an act of faith, and they can frame any conversation in that context. I prefer the word "confidence." I have confidence that my concepts of the way organic life on this planet has developed is correct, and plenty of first-hand evidence to back that up. Further, I have confidence that the vast majority of scientists are correct in their basic interpretations, with the caveat of minor variations in detail. If you choose to "believe" differently, in the face of such evidence and solidly based scientific interpretation, that's your right. Just understand the difference between "belief" and "confidence", and that your "belief" based on an individual interpretation of a text that antedates any form of what we would today call science does not constitute "evidence".

caw

Click to expand...

as such make sure when putting forth your confidence that you in fact know the difference between scientific law and scientific theory and likewise adaptation and evolution which are not the same thing!

milkweed said:

as such make sure when putting forth your confidence that you in fact know the difference between scientific law and scientific theory and likewise adaptation and evolution which are not the same thing!

Click to expand...

Trust me on this one, weed. I have Ph.D. in Geology with a 40-year working specialty in paleontology. I also teach Geology at the local university and have prior teaching experience elsewhere. I am intimately familiar with the kinds of faux-rational arguments Creationists bring to the table.

And I get the sense that you, yourself, are misconstruing the real meaning of "theory" and "law".

caw

milkweed said:

Is evolution still a theory, or is now in fact a law? There is a difference.

Click to expand...

You have completely misconstrued use of the word theory as applied by science. Scientific theories do not get promoted to law.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Click to expand...

Full explanation here.

Please don't waste further time arguing a misbegotten line of reasoning; educate yourself on the nomenclature.

milkweed said:

Is evolution still a theory, or is now in fact a law? There is a difference.

As for the supermarket strawberries, how is hybridization of a fruit by humans evolution?

Click to expand...

You're confusing theories with bills which often do get promoted to laws...as per School House Rock..."I'm just a Bill, sitting here on Capital Hill..."

I really don't want to dogpile here but I have to address this as well.

milkweed said:

and likewise adaptation and evolution which are not the same thing!

Click to expand...

Adaptation is a facet of evolution. Saying "they are not the same thing!" is kind of like saying your toes and your foot are not the same thing. Your toes are not your foot, but they are indeed a facet of your foot.

As a Christian, creationist, I believe in evolution. So, both sides hate me.

Devil Ledbetter said:

You have completely misconstrued use of the word theory as applied by science. Scientific theories do not get promoted to law.


Full explanation here.

Please don't waste further time arguing a misbegotten line of reasoning; educate yourself on the nomenclature.

Click to expand...

Well damn that's way different from when I was studying physics and chemistry (university level BS Chemistry) some 25+ years ago now. Back then in the stone ages a theory was an idea or construct that couldn't be readily proven and a law was an idea or construct that could be proven!

Oh well may as well throw the baby out with the bathwater now!

milkweed said:

Well damn that's way different from when I was studying physics and chemistry (university level BS Chemistry) some 25+ years ago now. Back then in the stone ages a theory was an idea or construct that couldn't be readily proven and a law was an idea or construct that could be proven!

Oh well may as well throw the baby out with the bathwater now!

Click to expand...

What you say you learned back then is a decidedly non-scientific usage of the word. Perhaps your professors were using "theory" when they meant "hypothesis."

A theory is a hunch with replicability and the ability to make conjectures and hypotheses from it. Someone who observes a phenomenon, is able to coax it into existence again and then makes a conjecture based upon that has a theory. The problem is when a scientist does it, they can't be sloppy about it. They have to have done their homework on it. This isn't the 18th century anymore.

Xelebes said:

A theory is a hunch with replicability and the ability to make conjectures and hypotheses from it. Someone who observes a phenomenon, is able to coax it into existence again and then makes a conjecture based upon that has a theory. The problem is when a scientist does it, they can't be sloppy about it. They have to have done their homework on it. This isn't the 18th century anymore.

Click to expand...

No, a scientific theory is not "a hunch" and hypotheses don't come from the theory. A theory is an accepted valid explanation of a phenomenon which has been supported by the repeat testing (which is perhaps what you mean by replicability?) of hypotheses.

Anyway, we still shouldn't just "believe" in evolution because it's like, really real 'n' shit.

milkweed said:

Is evolution still a theory, or is now in fact a law? There is a difference.

As for the supermarket strawberries, how is hybridization of a fruit by humans evolution?

Click to expand...

Are you thinking of those who pooh-pooh evolution by saying it's "only a theory?" Whether they know it or not (some people repeat things without fully knowing what they're saying), the statement confuses two meanings of the word theory, one used in ordinary speech, and one used in science.

milkweed said:

Well damn that's way different from when I was studying physics and chemistry (university level BS Chemistry) some 25+ years ago now. Back then in the stone ages a theory was an idea or construct that couldn't be readily proven

Click to expand...

That's the "ordinary," non-scientific definition of theory. As Devil said, the scientific word for this ordinary use of the word theory is hypothesis.

and a law was an idea or construct that could be proven!

Click to expand...

Also, you don't PROVE stuff in science. You do in math, but that's different.

Another word that comes into play in this discussion is the word "proof". You can "prove" things in mathematics because no measurements are involved. In the legal system, "proof" is established by convincing a jury of one side or another of the legal argument, and having them render a judgment. In science, "proof" comes about pragmatically, through a preponderance of measurements and observational evidence that becomes so overwhelming as to be, in a practical sense, undeniable. Heisenberg's* Uncertainty Principle basically says that you can't "prove", in the sense of mathematical proof, anything that involves physical measurement.

That does not mean you can't establish an overwhelming degree of confidence in a theory, which allows the science to proceed forward. Scientists everywhere (real scientists, that is) understand this completely, and can also provide statistical evaluation of the degree of uncertainty in any set of measurements. Aberrational anecdotal incidents do not affect the data set, when the data set is stochastically large enough.

A good example of a thoroughly-established theory is the expansion of the universe, leading back to a conclusion we call, rather unfortunately, the Big Bang Theory. No reputable astronomer/cosmologist denies that idea anymore; the evidence for it is just too overwhelming. But even into the 1950s, there was a competing theory, the Steady State Theory, supported by numerous reputable scientists, including famously British astronomer Fred Hoyle, also the author of some well-known SF classics. Hoyle detested the idea of the "Big Bang" to the end of his life. He was wrong.

Einstein detested the theory of Quantum Mechanics to the end of his life, as well, and was likewise wrong.

I believe it was famous paleontologist/biologist Stephen Jay Gould who said, paraphrased: "The theory of evolution is supported by evidence about as well as any scientific theory can be."

There are good theories, supported by lots of evidence, and bad theories, supported by little, if any. To denigrate something in science as "just a theory" is an idiotic statement, and an egregious misuse of the word.

caw


*No, I am not referring to Walter White.