150 replies to this topic

[SamDavies]

When I first heard about evolution at school I just thought if some wanted to believe life formed out of a soupy lifeless sea then good on them each to their own. I got top marks on paper for vomiting out what I had read and was being taught. I had more life shattering issues in my life and being concerned to whether some ape was my great, great.......granddaddy wasn’t one of them. Really at the end of the day who cared. And it was all theory anyway and theories have a tendency to constantly change depending what agenda is motivating them at the time.

I’ve always been one for scrutinising words used no matter what the subject. This really does make a difference to whether something is being presented as fact or theory.

So getting down to some recent reading into evolution the language used was striking. THEORY is not fact, certainty, or proof of a reality. It is hypothesis and/or belief. Evolution is recognised generally to be fact within the scientific community but is still seen as theory by those in the same field who still recognise that theories can’t represent fact nor should they be presented as such.

Theory is synonymous to: argument, assumption, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, (long) shot, speculation, stab (In the dark), supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding.

Evolution of life is a constantly evolving theory made up of many theories and ideas. The few fragile facts have been mostly accomplished under trying laboratory settings and have more often than not proved wrong or not viable many theories that have been present by some as facts or remain in conflict with theories till more sophisticated technologies are found to prove otherwise.

Man is a creature constantly redefining itself. IMO, if evolution had indeed become fact then the latest articles on the subject would have dropped the ‘theory’ in The Theory of Evolution. But there are no sustainable good quality concrete facts to drop the theory. There are too few facts in the mixture to have the cement set firmly.

My link
My link

It’s easier to accept some things as fact as generally scientists are respected and believed. They take all the hard work out of independent individual investigation. Plus with all the high sounding words scientist generally like to use to sound educated, they leave the general populace brain numb trying to get their head around words that need intense studies in themselves, who’s to question all their accumulated pieces of accreditations and letters after names. Who’s to question their theories presented as fact.

Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design and so forth are all beliefs/ideas/theories indulged in by their believers, IMO. Bon appétit.

[sam12six]

It is a fact that evolution occurs. Evolutionary theory is the attempt to explain how and why.

No different from:

It is a fact that gravity exists. Gravitational theory is the attempt to explain how and why.

----

In a way, you're right. The theory is sort of a belief system (though one reached by interpretation of data).

[Imaginarynumber1]

Creationism and intelligent design are nothing but pseudo-scientific claptrap and wish fulfillment.
I don't think you understand what it means for something to be a theory in the scientific sense.

Something is only a theory if there is no evidence to dispute it. (Among other criteria, I'm just tired and don't feel like typing out an essay here.) To date, there is no evidence that disputes evolutionary theory. You can no believe it all you want, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, (it does) and that doesn't mean there are alternative explanations. (there aren't).
And before you start making assertions about what evolution is and isn't, you should read through this recent thread here that covers the topic quite well.

Edit: Edited to call creationism and intelligent design pseudo-scientific claptrap and wish fulfillment.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 31 January 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Xpeople]

intelligent design is just evolution with god in it.

[Rlyeh]

After all that, no one told you what a scientific theory was?





Are germs and atoms fact? Their explanations are still theories. A scientific theory is an explanation of phenomena.

Edited by Rlyeh, 31 January 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Rlyeh]

More accurately, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Rlyeh, on 31 January 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

More accurately, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

You can keep trying, but I don't think you're going to get anywhere. You know how these threads usually go.....

[Wyvernkeeper]

SamDavies, on 31 January 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

THEORY is not fact, certainty, or proof of a reality. It is hypothesis and/or belief. Evolution is recognised generally to be fact within the scientific community but is still seen as theory by those in the same field who still recognise that theories can’t represent fact nor should they be presented as such.

Theory is synonymous to: argument, assumption, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, (long) shot, speculation, stab (In the dark), supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding.

Evolution of life is a constantly evolving theory made up of many theories and ideas. The few fragile facts have been mostly accomplished under trying laboratory settings and have more often than not proved wrong or not viable many theories that have been present by some as facts or remain in conflict with theories till more sophisticated technologies are found to prove otherwise.

It’s easier to accept some things as fact as generally scientists are respected and believed. They take all the hard work out of independent individual investigation. Plus with all the high sounding words scientist generally like to use to sound educated, they leave the general populace brain numb trying to get their head around words that need intense studies in themselves, who’s to question all their accumulated pieces of accreditations and letters after names. Who’s to question their theories presented as fact.
Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design and so forth are all beliefs/ideas/theories indulged in by their believers, IMO. Bon appétit.

I think you misunderstand the word theory, when used in a scientific context...

I would suggest you take greater pains to understand scientific method too, your understanding of it is clearly flawed.  When you ask 'who is to question it,' you miss the purpose of peer review.

Frankly, evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator gd, yet those who refute evolution entirely seem unable to comprehend the theory itself.

Here is a primer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_process

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 31 January 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Evolution is proven by fossils and similarities in DNA, as well as physiological similarities. Claiming that "creationism" is the reason for our existence is not only silly, but downright ignorant; ignorant towards science.

Intelligent design is feasible, however, considering we WERE intelligently designed through nature.

Edited by Alienated Being, 31 January 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[FurthurBB]

SamDavies, on 31 January 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

When I first heard about evolution at school I just thought if some wanted to believe life formed out of a soupy lifeless sea then good on them each to their own. I got top marks on paper for vomiting out what I had read and was being taught. I had more life shattering issues in my life and being concerned to whether some ape was my great, great.......granddaddy wasn’t one of them. Really at the end of the day who cared. And it was all theory anyway and theories have a tendency to constantly change depending what agenda is motivating them at the time.

I’ve always been one for scrutinising words used no matter what the subject. This really does make a difference to whether something is being presented as fact or theory.

So getting down to some recent reading into evolution the language used was striking. THEORY is not fact, certainty, or proof of a reality. It is hypothesis and/or belief. Evolution is recognised generally to be fact within the scientific community but is still seen as theory by those in the same field who still recognise that theories can’t represent fact nor should they be presented as such.

Theory is synonymous to: argument, assumption, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, (long) shot, speculation, stab (In the dark), supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding.

Evolution of life is a constantly evolving theory made up of many theories and ideas. The few fragile facts have been mostly accomplished under trying laboratory settings and have more often than not proved wrong or not viable many theories that have been present by some as facts or remain in conflict with theories till more sophisticated technologies are found to prove otherwise.

Man is a creature constantly redefining itself. IMO, if evolution had indeed become fact then the latest articles on the subject would have dropped the ‘theory’ in The Theory of Evolution. But there are no sustainable good quality concrete facts to drop the theory. There are too few facts in the mixture to have the cement set firmly.

My link
My link

It’s easier to accept some things as fact as generally scientists are respected and believed. They take all the hard work out of independent individual investigation. Plus with all the high sounding words scientist generally like to use to sound educated, they leave the general populace brain numb trying to get their head around words that need intense studies in themselves, who’s to question all their accumulated pieces of accreditations and letters after names. Who’s to question their theories presented as fact.

Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design and so forth are all beliefs/ideas/theories indulged in by their believers, IMO. Bon appétit.

If you had paid attention in class, you would never had posted this.  Scientific theories are not the same as the word theory you are thinking of.  It is not conjecture, it does not change based on any motivation, it is the best explanation based on evidence of how a natural phenomenon works.  The natural phenomenon that evolutionary theory tries to explain, is evolution.  Evolution, a change in allelic frequency in a population over time, is a natural observable phenomenon and a fact.  Scientific theories never become fact.

[FurthurBB]

Xpeople, on 31 January 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

intelligent design is just evolution with god in it.

No, it is not because they try to bring in that irreducible complexity nonsense.

[aquatus1]

SamDavies, on 31 January 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

I've always been one for scrutinising words used no matter what the subject. This really does make a difference to whether something is being presented as fact or theory.

Agreed, it makes a major, major difference.

Which begs the question:  Out of all that scrutinizing, out of all those synonyms, out of all those dictionary and encyclopedia definitions...

Weren't you curious as to why some of the definitions had the word Science or Scientific in front of them?

Quote

Evolution of life is a constantly evolving theory made up of many theories and ideas.

Well, one of them is.  That is the one called the "General Theory of Evolution", which isn't really a scientific theory as much as it is an umbrella term for all the various actual scientific theories of evolution, along with the "Fact of Evolution".

So, yeah, evolution can mean three different things, depending on the context.

Quote

It's easier to accept some things as fact as generally scientists are respected and believed.

True, and to a certain extent, understandable.  After all, the topic of evolution really isn't all that important to a lot of people.  My main objection is that taking science on faith defeats the purpose, but I am reluctantly willing to admit that most people simply do not have the time or interest to spend on it.

Quote

They take all the hard work out of independent individual investigation. Plus with all the high sounding words scientist generally like to use to sound educated, they leave the general populace brain numb trying to get their head around words that need intense studies in themselves, who's to question all their accumulated pieces of accreditations and letters after names. Who's to question their theories presented as fact.

Other scientists.  

Incidentally, scientists don't use high sounding words (never heard that term before) to sound educated; they use big words because they are educated.

Alienated Being, on 31 January 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Claiming that "creationism" is the reason for our  existence is not only silly, but downright ignorant; ignorant towards  science.

In all fairness, I don't believe anyone has made that claim in this thread.

Xpeople, on 31 January 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

intelligent design is just evolution with god in it.

Actually, no.  Intelligent Design was literally made by taking Creationist arguments and removing references to God.  The whole purpose of ID was to separate Creationism from God, in order to get around the Court's legal decision that Creationism was inherently religious and could not, therefore, be taught at public schools.

The Court did not appreciate the effort.

Edited by aquatus1, 31 January 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[FurthurBB]

aquatus1, on 31 January 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Agreed, it makes a major, major difference.

Which begs the question:  Out of all that scrutinizing, out of all those synonyms, out of all those dictionayy and encyclopedia definitions...

Weren't you curious as to why some of the definitions had the word Science or Scientific in front of them?



Well, one of them is.  That is the one called the "General Theory of Evolution", which isn't really a scientific theory as much as it is an umbrella term for all the various actual scientific theories of evolution, along with the "Fact of Evolution".

So, yeah, evolution can mean three different things, depending on the context.



True, and to a certain extent, understandable.  After all, the topic of evolution really isn't all that important to a lot of people.  My main objection is that taking science on faith defeats the purpose, but I am reluctantly willing to admit that most people simply do not have the time or interest to spend on it.



Other scientists.  Incidentally, scientists don't use high sounding words (never heard that term before) to sound educated; they use big words because they are educated.

Not to mention a lot of scientific words are large, like phosphatidylcholine or spectrophotometer or even methyltransferase.  What other words are you supposed to use?

[SamDavies]

Thanks, Aquatus1.

No, not curious in the least why words scientific and science before other words. After all, the studies and research are scientific so I'd expect the words science and scientific to come up all the time. But I am also very aware that science is progressive and more often than not it can only make steps forward in pace with the latest technologies and techniques. I am also aware that it is, like all things, imperfect and frequently inaccurate or wrong. Fortunately studies are scrutinised more today. And scientist who lie about things get caught out pretty quickly unlike years past.

"So, yeah, evolution can mean three different things, depending on the context".

Lol, sounds like politics.

Yes, I agree it is sad most do not find the time or have the interest to do deeper research. I wish I had more hours in the day for research. That's why this site is so great as I can directly talk with those with experience and or interest.

Lol, sorry. instead of saying 'high sounding words', probably should have said something like: words that most don't understand unless they are involved with the field in question. So this use of unfamiliar words does make people rather reluctant to study and investigate as they have to reach for the dictionary every five minutes or read a few pages that a link has taken them to which can lead to more links, if you know what I mean.

Correct, Aquatus1. I was not promoting Creationism or anything else, thanks for noting this. I clearly stated that I see all the views of how life got here as belief systems. Nor did I insult evolution theory. I did take notice in class or I'd not have got straight A's or near perfact scores in biology. That is why some years later when reading more about evolution all sorts of questions came up to why some see evolution as fact and give examples of what they believe to be facts or proofs but what I learnt disproves these same facts.

I am totally against any religion being taught in schools, by the way. That's why there are buildings called churches and so forth. Though I am for teaching about ALL mainstream religions in hope of making a more accepting society towards other peoples faiths. But then we'd have parents up in arms. Some, IMO, don't want their kids thinking just following. My ex church had a really good book about various religions. It would have been even better if the last chapter had been ripped out, lol. The one speaking about my exchurch and how at the end of the day despite all the other religions ours was the right one as all the others went against God's word. Yeah, right.

I feel the same regarding different theories of how life got here. Let the kids decide for themselves. yeah, I know...only in a true free society would that every happen . I hated religion lessons. I felt they insulted the intelligence of God and his character and that of Christ and also arrogantly dismissed the faiths of others. And as I had chosen - though a child at the time - the beliefs of natives mostly, I felt insulted. I was also aware from a very early age what blasted religion had done to decimate native cultures. I was very uncooperative and one time got into a physical scrap with a priest during high school, lol. Got off lightly as most though me nuts as I didn't behave like a sheeple and kept asking annoying awkward questions, so was forgiven for trying to knock his teeth out . I also felt I had better things to do then sitting down coloring in Easter or Christmas posters and making decorations. Can do that at home, hey.

Thanks for your respectful and helpful comments, Aquatus1. I know this topic gets to a lot of people but I am just trying to get some logical feed back. I did try to understand how something can be a fact when the odds of that fact were so impossible that it can only be a theory until shown otherwise but got continuously flamed by a member (who I've not seen around since coming back to UM) who just said I was wrong without pointing out why or how I was wrong and deliberately posted endless posts to clutter up the topic and other threads I commented on. NOT helpful. I have always believe that if one has faith/confidence in ones beliefs there is not need to get angry at those that do not share those same beliefs or belittle them or their intelligence.

Cheers .

Edited by SamDavies, 31 January 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Sensible Logic]

Xpeople, on 31 January 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

intelligent design is just evolution with god in it.

Intelligent Design is just repackaged Creationism.