Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Draken]

In cosmology the Steady State theory has pretty much been discarded in favour of the Big Bang theory. I don't think you can say that one is an amended version of the other; they offer distinctly different visions of the history of the universe. The Big Bang best fits the available data so is winning out at the moment.

Btw how does cosmology impinge on Creationism? I take it they'd disagree with that too?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]TOE (cute) is a framework for discovery, not a description of how things ought to be. FActs are open to interpretation on an individual basis, but that does not affect the theory itself. Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. All new discoveries only strengthen the specific knowledge of what has happened in the past.

"framework for discovery" - well, whatever, as long as it is STILL also a theory, ok? And if any theory's basic tenets are proven by new data to be incorrect, then the theory should not be "adjusted", but discarded, and a more correct one formulated, wouldn't you agree? That's my main point that I'm trying to get across, because I feel that some th. of ev. people put that one particular theory in a special class by itself and claim that they can adjust it ad infinitum as new data arises. I would say that if that is the case, then you should NOT call it the "th. of evolution", but "the theory as of (time,data) as to how the world as we see it got here", as I said before. Would you agree that if information comes along that contradicts its main tenets, then the theory should be discarded and another one formed?

I'm not sure about your "cow" question.

You can ignore it, then, if it didn't help to illustrate my point (the one mentioned above). I personally like illustrations, but if it didn't help you, then ignore it.

As to the aliens, I would hope they would also explain where they can from. If they evoled then the theory still holds. I've always allowed for deus ex machina as if everything was created to only appear as though it evolved. It's not very useful as a scientific principle since it renders analysis pointless. So, until the aliens or the second coming, analyzing the fossil record keeps geologists employed.

Yeah, gotta keep those geologists off the streets, they'd be causing so much trouble otherwise! But you missed my entire point about the alien example (a rather silly story, but useful to illustrate my point). It doesn't even matter if they evolved or not - the theory was about THIS world, and I said that they showed us convincing data that they had created, by intelligent design, THIS world. I was trying to illustrate the same thing but in a different way. Would you then "adjust" the theory of evolution to say that THIS world was created by intelligent design, or would it be more appropriate to discard it and formulate another one that more accurately deals with the new data? I think (and it seems like Dunadan and Draken agree with me - correct me if I'm wrong, people ) that the old theory, whose basic tenets have been shown to be incorrect, should be discarded and a new one formulated; in other words, there is a point where it is incorrect to "adjust" a theory any more.

This probably seems like a minor point to some people, but I think that it is VERY important - after all, theories are made to be tested and adjusted, and if data comes in that shows that they are very off-base in an absolutely basic way, then DISCARDED. And I feel that th. of ev. people, like I said before, are unwilling to do that ONLY in the case of ONE theory - the th. of evolution. And that is not only scientifically foolish, but dishonest.

ANd actually, you did say "Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. " - but you later on talked as if it could indeed be adjusted forever, so that's why I elaborated as I did in this post. Would you (or others out there) agree with what I said?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Draken
In cosmology the Steady State theory has pretty much been discarded in favour of the Big Bang theory. I don't think you can say that one is an amended version of the other; they offer distinctly different visions of the history of the universe. The Big Bang best fits the available data so is winning out at the moment.

Btw how does cosmology impinge on Creationism? I take it they'd disagree with that too?

The Big Bang is a theory that might be disproven, but it is the best explanation we have for what is observed at present. There are inconsistencies, and some day a better theory might be invented. But no, it doesn't impinge on Creationism.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
This probably seems like a minor point to some people, but I think that it is VERY important - after all, theories are made to be tested and adjusted, and if data comes in that shows that they are very off-base in an absolutely basic way, then DISCARDED. And I feel that th. of ev. people, like I said before, are unwilling to do that ONLY in the case of ONE theory - the th. of evolution. And that is not only scientifically foolish, but dishonest.

I hope I didn't misinterpreted this but what I have seen of evolutionscience seems willing to discard any theory when it's discovered that the basics were wrong. Take for example dinosaurs. For a long period, people thought that dinosaurs were coldblooded. Now we know that certainly some species were warmblooded. It's a pretty fundamental change, not just an adjustion, I guess. It may look little but it has many implications.

Many new discoveries on the field of astronomy (not my strongest side I'm afraid) forces scientists to rethink what we know of the universe often enough.

[Lizra]

Evolution is not off base, in an absolutely basic way. (Where do you come up with that!) Thats why it hasn't been discarded. When something new or different is discovered, it's added to the existing info in an intelligent manner. Evolution is not set in stone, (like religion). That would be silly, there is always more to learn. That's probably the main reason the creation story doesn't work for me! It's something that was made up thousands of years ago, and doesn't fit the facts we have learned with modern science. Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I hope I didn't misinterpreted this but what I have seen of evolutionscience seems willing to discard any theory when it's discovered that the basics were wrong. Take for example dinosaurs. For a long period, people thought that dinosaurs were coldblooded. Now we know that certainly some species were warmblooded. It's a pretty fundamental change, not just an adjustion, I guess. It may look little but it has many implications.

Many new discoveries on the field of astronomy (not my strongest side I'm afraid) forces scientists to rethink what we know of the universe often enough.

BTW, I love astronomy! And that's a good example. I imagine many theories have been discarded and new ones formed as new data is discovered.

Coldblooded/warmblooded is another good example. I just want to point out that the th. of ev. should, in the same way, also be subject to being discarded IF evidence is found disproving its basic tenets, instead of being "adjusted".

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Coldblooded/warmblooded is another good example. I just want to point out that the th. of ev. should, in the same way, also be subject to being discarded IF evidence is found disproving its basic tenets, instead of being "adjusted".

It should and I also think it does that. But of course new groundbreaking discoveries aren't made every day and often new data allows only to make an adjustment and not a whole new theory.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
(1)Evolution is not off base, in an absolutely basic way. (Where do you come up with that!) Thats why it hasn't been discarded. (2) When something new or different is discovered, it's added to the existing info in an intelligent manner. Evolution is not set in stone, (like religion). That would be silly, there is always more to learn. (3)That's probably the main reason the creation story doesn't work for me! It something that was made up thousands of years ago, and doesn't fit the facts we have learned with modern science. (4)Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water?

I added numbers to your quote for reference

(1) - I DID NOT say that it WAS. What I DID say is, that IF data came up that showed that it WAS off in an absolutely basic way, then and only then it should be DISCARDED and NOT adjusted, and a new theory formulated. Wouldn't you agree? However, I see many people so committed to the th. of ev. that they don't seem able to admit this.

(2) - That's fine, as long as the new info doesn't contradict the absolutely core tenets.

(3) - Let me not address the creation STORY at this point (that's a whole 'nother topic!), but rather let me address the model of creation by God, or even (what I prefer at this point) creation by intelligent design. In other words, let's compare apples to apples. We can't compare the creation STORY and the THEORY of evolution. We CAN compare and evaluate the THEORY of Evolution and the THEORY of Creation by Intelligent Design. My quick statement is that there are areas of BOTH theories that are in the realm of being "testable", and areas of BOTH theories that are outside the realm of being "testable". I'll elaborate further if you would like me to.

(4) - sorry, I didn't quite get what you were referring to - what did the baby represent here? (I can be pretty dense on occasion...)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
It should and I also think it does that. But of course new groundbreaking discoveries aren't made every day and often new data allows only to make an adjustment and not a whole new theory.

I completely agree.


(argh! drat that 90-second posting rule!!)
(argh AGAIN!! I guess I'm just a fast typist!! )

[Lizra]

The baby with the bath water was describing your idea of throwing the theory of evolution out if some new discovery was made. Don't throw the whole theory out, it is sound! Make the adjustments as logic would dictate. Be honest with the facts as they appear. But I guess you are talking about a discovery that hasn't happened, a major discovery that comes along and makes evolution seem incorrect. Since this hasn't happened, I'll pass. I'm starting to get a little confused with all the statements being made!

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Well, (Scratches his head and thinks about it) the idea that everything is predictable and that we live in a mechanical universe was disproved, for at the smaller levels, everything depends on chance.

Besides, what are you trying to say? That science never makes mistakes?

Nope I am not trying to say that at all. The point is that things are improved upon. Science can improve upon itself to make things more accurate.

Your example above is a great illustration.

At the marco-level we still you Newton. Einsteinian demonstated superior accurracy or has uses in special domains.

Does not mean that Newton was tossed out.

As for earlier stuff:

robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.

Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.

For layman it means just an guess or idea

However, it is a conceptual framework that explains existing phenomena and makes predictions

the two are not the same


basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.

I am of the former

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
The baby with the bath water was describing your idea of throwing the theory of evolution out if some new discovery was made. Don't throw the whole theory out, it is sound! Make the adjustments as logic would dictate. Be honest with the facts as they appear. But I guess you are talking about a discovery that hasn't happened, a major discovery that comes along and makes evolution seem incorrect. Since this hasn't happened, I'll pass. I'm starting to get a little confused with all the statements being made!

I think we agree here - I'm not saying throw it out if it is sound, or don't make any reasonable adjustments, but I am saying be WILLING to throw it out if appropriate and not just say you can NEVER throw it out because it is infinitely adjustable. If you insist on the infinitely adjustable thing, then please take "evolution" out of the name of the theory. Do you see the difference? It is another one of those apparently small things, but when you through the implications, it is very important. Do you understand what I'm saying? If so, do you agree? If not, should I try to explain it again?

[Lief Erikson]

Well, Lizra, here are some points I can tell you to help you if you're having trouble with contradiction between evolution and the Bible.

1, Evolution is discovering some very important truths, but as yet, it is still has a way to go. As Afro elf said, science does improve upon itself, gaining more accuracy in its predictions and discovering new things.

2, The Bible never says how God created things. It says that he created by speaking, and things came to be. This can address the question of the Big Bang, as well as the Theory of Evolution. It doesn't say whether at his speaking everything simply went "pffft!" and came to be, or whether he spoke and evolution happened.


Actually, RÃ*an, I tend to disagree with you about Creation taking place in seven twenty-four hour days, and the traditional interpretation, being a theory. I think that it needs a good deal of evidence before it can be accepted as such (Just as scientific theories do).

Originally posted by afro-elf
robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.

Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.

Afro elf, as you know, a theory is used to observe, learn about and predict nature. I'll take RÃ*an's cow example for a moment (Somewhere up there among all of the posts). You can observe things, and learn about them. You create a model which assembles all of the facts (assuming that the cow is a horse, because of lack of data), put it together and learn something new. There are facts that science knows, for instance, that the creature has four hooves, frequently lives in a barn and eats hay. But we have to be careful where we go from the observed data, and what model we choose. If, from the available information, we decide that the creature is a horse, we could be wrong. So usually, it isn't the data available that is inaccurate, it's the theory based upon the available information.

(Okay, I'm going to change RÃ*an's example here) A difficulty can come when you create a model based upon an inaccurate model. For example, let's say you know something to be a cow, based upon observed data, when it is actually a horse. Then, you observe something black with at least two legs on it. You might theorize that this is a crow. What you don't suspect is that it might actually be a human with black clothes on, because what would a human be doing on a cow?

Now you've run into an obstacle, and until you go back to square 1 and show that the cow is actually a horse, you're not going to understand what's on it. Therefore, an inaccuracy in one thing, which has some evidence and can sometimes lead to errors in other things. If the inaccuracy is in something that is used to measure and discover about the nature of other things, then you've got a worse problem, for the information you are receiving can be incorrect.

Thus, sometimes not only can a theory be wrong, but observed data can be in error.

It is possible that the tools we have used to discover atoms were flawed, and thus we don't know that atoms exist. The things that we observe based upon our study could be tapping into something which is different entirely.

I don't think that this is a frequent happening in science by any means, and I'm not using this to combat evolution (Though RÃ*an might ).

basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.

I am of the former

And I completely understand. I don't ask you to give up your "facts" for transcedentalism. I don't ask you to give them up for something that you can't observe, based on simple faith. I certainly didn't.

I didn't have to have faith at that point. All I had to do is ask God if he existed, and he showed me that he did. It didn't take faith to ask a question. Faith comes later, and if you ever meet God, I might talk to you about it.

But science is a wonderful thing, leading us on to truths about our own planet, about the universe and about life itself. It can be fascinating for Christians and nonChristians alike.

[Lief Erikson]

By the way Afro elf, it is possible, on a sidenote, to show you methods in which you might be wrong in your proof that Robert exists.

[afro-elf]

I asked God if he existed and he said "No."


Yes, Robert could be an actor named John pretending to be a guy named Robert. . But in the above example I do not believe that nature is attempting to deceive us on purpose.

Robert could just be a figment of my mind. There are more

I understand the cow example. I am aware that science is not perfect however I know of no other endeavor that has been as "useful"

[Rían]

Originally posted by afro-elf
robert can be shown to exist, empiracally.

Would you explain how, please?

(1)Theory is not STILL JUST A THEORY.

(2)For layman it means just an guess or idea

(3)However, it is a conceptual framework that explains existing phenomena and makes predictions

(4)the two are not the same

(I added numbers for reference)
(1) if you were quoting my earlier post, you quoted incorrectly. I said "still ALSO a theory", not "still JUST a theory" - a very big difference.
(2) that is probably true; however, I certainly don't think that because I am not a layman. Were you implying that anyone here was, or was that just a general observation?
(3) Right. However, do you agree that there is a possibility that the explanation that is formulated after careful evaluation of the data may be wrong? (and that, obviously, is where the adjustment process comes in, and in extreme cases, the discarding).
(4) I agree.

basically you can look at life with empiricism ie believing what the "facts" tell you or transcedentalism.

I am of the former

Why not both? In the empirical realm, believe what the facts tell you; in realms where things cannot be measured, use your common sense and experience and whatever else you have found to be important and reliable.

[afro-elf]

(1) if you were quoting my earlier post, you quoted incorrectly. I said "still ALSO a theory", not "still JUST a theory" - a very big difference

noted then I would amend and say all theories are not equal.

Were you implying that anyone here was, or was that just a general observation?

the latter

3) Right. However, do you agree that there is a possibility that the explanation that is formulated after careful evaluation of the data may be wrong? (and that, obviously, is where the adjustment process comes in, and in extreme cases, the discarding).

I concur.

in realms where things cannot be measured, use your common sense and experience and whatever else you have found to be important and reliable.

I am not sure what domain you are using realms in but you seem to be begging the question that such "realms exist"

Would you explain how, please?

I can take you to physical meet him. You don't have faith.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Actually, RÃ*an, I tend to disagree with you about Creation taking place in seven twenty-four hour days, and the traditional interpretation, being a theory. I think that it needs a good deal of evidence before it can be accepted as such (Just as scientific theories do).

Hey, Lief, I NEVER said I thought creation took place in 7 24-hour days! Funny how misunderstandings can take place! I am purposefully NOT stating what I believe to be true, and I don't intend to. What I am trying to achieve is to get a "fair playing field" for theories OTHER than evolution about how the world got here, so that they, too, may be fairly and scientifically evaluated.

One thing I am trying to do at this point is get th. of ev. people to think out the implications of "all data fits my theory, because it can be infinitely adjusted" idea. I think that most people now agree that if ANY theory's basic tenents are past adjustment, INCLUDING the th. of ev., then the theory needs to be discarded and a new one formulated. Am I right, people?

Next I want to talk about why the theory of creation by intelligent design is suitable for scientific evaluation, but first I have to make dinner . I'll check back later

[Rían]

Actually, Lief, I think I just misinterpreted YOUR post - *sigh* - looking back, I think you didn't say that I necessarily believed it, but that the classic creation theory based on the creation story in the Bible wasn't necessarily an appropriate theory - is that right?

[afro-elf]

What I am trying to achieve is to get a "fair playing field" for theories OTHER than evolution about how the world got here, so that they, too, may be fairly and scientifically evaluated.

Do you think they haven't been? All the point raised here about the the METHODS of Evolution have been successfully defended. Once that had been done the next move was to swift to the weakness of all Theories Manuever. However, That does not strenghten the creationist arguement.


If you are swifting to ID. MY question is how intelligent is this
"Creator"?

There are several "design flaws" in Nature

Are you going to use anthropic arguments?