I-AM-NOT (in this instance) QUESTIONING-EVOLUTIONARY-SCIENCE. NO-ESTOY-DUDANDO-LA-CIENCIA-EVOLUCIONARIA.


I'm sorry, from how you have presented yourself, I assumed you were a scientist, but this statement seems to indicate otherwise.

Yes, I am very interested in personal responsibility. Personal responsibility extends to insuring that what I do is properly understood by my clients. A scientist's client is mankind, since they are involved for the search for understanding, it is a scientist's responsibility that his client is not misled.


And yet another ridiculous statement. .

So you agree all sciences and non-sciences should have a disclaimer as too the validity of their claims?



Is that a fact? Exactly which of me statements there is false?



So then should people that head organizations like the discovery institute be responsible for their statements and blatant disinformation of science?


Hardly, I am trying to get a feel for how far you feel personal responsibility should be extended. You state that your responsibility is to your clients, scientists is to mankind's, so logically a gun manufactures is to its clients as well. And if guns are what is killing their clients in the first place, should gun makers not be held accountable?


Edit: Later Iams, going to cheer on my buckeyes! Hopefully, when I return, you will have added an air of rationality to your argument, though I will not be pinching my ass of in angst.

I said science, right? Can't help yourself can you? Have to set up an attack against EVIL religion. I'm sure you're already drooling all over yourself waiting to jump on. You're hilarious!

There you go, either putting words in my mouth or making assumptions. And if you are this bad at making assumptions and you're a scientist can you see why I am skeptical of the interpretations of theories? I NEVER said they were false. I was trying to insinuate they were stupid, not false.


If they are presenting interpretations of scientific theories, yes, of course.


I think if you read the documentation that comes with "guns" you will find that they actually do explain that the weapons are capable of causing severe injury and even death.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Truethat, For you love i asked a dear teacher friend of mine for a link on this subject...I see how much you put into exploring an idea and this is meant to contribute to the effort..I don't know if it will help or even apply as I am not a part of this whole debate but i do appreciate your curious nature and your relentless passion for looking a things as deeply as you do .......I do think you are a bit misunderstood....


http://www.moderndeism.com/html/understanding_reason.html

this is real good too sort of goes with the debate...

No I'm just sick of answering the same question over and over again only for "SO WHAT" to be your reply.

So far I've heard

Scientists aren't the ones saying this

when I proved it was indeed scientists saying this then it became




"Well its just on a tv show and its a casual conversation"

when Shaftsbury posted the Wiki article (funny how when a science supporter posts a wiki article its ok isn't it? ) that showed that the program had indeed been taken to task for the way they presented the material we got a nifty little disclaimer saying the same thing I was saying.

Then it became

"You're blowing it out of proportion"

When I said No I just find that if this is happening more than rarely then its going to make me hesitate to trust what they say in the future and the fact that other scientists are not more vocal about condemning this kind of thing makes me think there's something of an agenda.

Then it became

"No one does this you are just religious so you are biased"

When I showed how Dawkins' does this

it became

"Well he's a rogue zealot and no one takes him seriously"

when I pointed out that he is regarded as a prominent evolutionist

it became

"Well ignore him then and read his other books"

It seems you have an answer for everything. So after a while its apparent that no matter what I say you will find a ridiculous way to shoot it down.

Honestly.



I'd ALSO like to point out two things.


First of all NONE OF YOU actually watched the documentary that you are defending so much.

You have ragged on and on about not blinding criticizing or supporting something, but you've blindly supported something you don't have the first clue about.

Second of all I'm not the only one that took issue with the film. If it was presented as a fun "sci fi" kind of thing it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest. But it was presented as fact.

Since none of you (except maybe Shaftsbury) actually watched the damn thing you are talking out your ear this whole time.


And my other point is in reference to this quote





You say that when someone misinforms the public about evolution it causes Science to defend its position.

If in defending its position it LIES or misinforms the public in a different way WHO is supposed to do something about that.

Could you all answer that for me since we've gone round and round with this.

Who is responsible for making sure that Science is properly presented to the public? Because so far it seems like you are saying the media is. And I think that's a cop out.


I also want to be clear that I'm specifically talking about the field of Evolution. I think I've said several times that OTHER sciences don't act this way.

Maybe some of them do in ways that I am unaware of but in general Evolution is a lot different than say Chemistry or Physics.

hmmm ask a direct question and silence.


Mooooooving on to skepticism I guess.

So... skepticism...

SOURCE

I don't think I'm being hypocritical in my skepticism at all.

Yeah that's what I always thought skepticism meant too but it seems it really means

All things are supposed to be questioned except for some things.

No one is lying to anyone. Information is presented as it is known at that time. I am still confused as to what you are actually referring to. I tried looking at your previous posts and saw you mentioned a television show 'Before the Dinosaurs'(?) and Dawkins.

Let me be the first to say that Dawkins doesn't present any false information, to my knowledge. I have read many of his books (God Delusion happens not to be one of them), and I haven't found anything conflicting thus far. Its the way he presents his information that is in question. If someone is looking to get information between creation vs non-creation, then look to Dawkins' work. If you are looking for the latest research in evolution without the creation 'elephant in the room', subscribe to Science or Nature.


I am glad to see True and Iamsson questioning science. I really don't see what all the emotion has been in this thread about. I would like to see you, True, spell out what it is exactly you have a problem with as clear as day for me because its obviously something I haven't read in a previous post from you. What exactly about evolution are you questioning? That is all I want to know because that is where my strength lies, in informing others about Biology.

Uh the emotion hasn't come from US!


That's what we don't understand either.

I'm sorry but it seems like to me that any time you question evolution this is the kind of reaction that you get.

Spit flying anger without anyone really listening to what you are saying.

I don't ATTACK evolution. I don't disbelieve evolution.

I just see the way this thread has dissolved happen over and over and over and over and over again for the last few years.

It wasn't until my sister that I mentioned before got upset about the exact same show that she finally understood what my complaint has been.

Here's a test for you. Go on to any Science site as a member and don't let on that you are a scientist and mention that you were really annoyed the way the Scientists in Before the Dinosaurs suggested the information in a way that made it seem as though it were an absolute. And watch what happens.

Until my agnostic sister was accused of being a born again who got her science information out of Genesis she had no idea what I was talking about.

Maybe you don't experience it because you ARE a scientist but seriously I've noticed a knee jerk reaction to slam people into pews and insist they are religious just because they question evolution.

And the questions NEVER get answered. You get treated like an idiot. This thread is a perfect example of what I mean.

This is what I said in the first few comments on this thread.




And this is exactly what happened. YET

AGAIN.


So this is what I get upset about and what I don't understand.

I am not sure whats so funny here. I am using your train of thought and logic. If we need to protect people from the falsities of science surely it would be in our best interest to protect them from all falsities. I mean, religious books cannot even hold a candle to science when it comes to verifiability. If we should censor or warning label scientists who speak, because they are misleading people into believing that their proposed scientific ideas are fact we most certainly should warning label ideas that are associated with no facts.

If a scientist goes on TV and says, using Zircons, we found the relative temperature 4 billion years ago was such and such, but this is unprovable and based on theories, then TV evangelists (heck even your church pastor) should state that these are beliefs based upon unprovable theories.

Last I remember you were a fan of ID, should ID people not state that they are proposing mechanisms which can never be tested?

I mean really, since you are so concerned about our public and their general state of lack of knowledge, why not warning label everything that is not based on testable facts?



Yes, I know what you were trying to insinuate but its hardly relevant. Obviously, you are not a scientist, because were you, you may have realized my comments were relevant to your point. Evolution is a unifying theory of biology, as I said, it is more understood than just about any other theory in science. Your microwave works on the principles of quantum mechanics, as a physicist, I would get slap happy, if we had the knowledge of QM that we do for evolution.




Great, so we agree, anything that is not supported by fact should have a warning label? And people who release information without said warning label should be held accountable for irresponsible releasing of information. Wonderful, I expect nothing less in a country of lawyers.



Own them, they do. But should the manufactures of guns not be held responsible for deaths caused by their firearms? And how do we taken into account guns purchased illegally? They do not come with any kind of warning label. Thats rather akin to some atheist, using science to further their cause. The guns are out there for anyone to get a hold of, as is the scientific information. If we hold scientists accountable for releasing this information for anyone to use for their purpose, then we for sure should hold gun makers accountable for releasing something as dangerous as a gun into the public arena. I would gather, guns have killed and harmed more people then science. (Though, you could probably argue guns are a creation of science).


All in All, I am rather disappointed in your reply Iams, I sincerely hoped that you would have rationalized and justified your point of view on skepticism of science, by either explaining what parts of evolutionary biology are not fact and should not be stated as such or jumping in the boat with me that all things not based on fact should have a warning label.

Ahh, I guess I have not. Can you point out where I was defending the documentary? No honestly, I dont recall, if you could copy and paste it that would be great.



Thats funny, Because I have studied physics for over 15 years now, and science in general longer than that. I have also had the joy to study some evolutionary biology and I have yet to find it so much different than chemistry or physics. Seems like a sound science to me.

Oh thats right though, we cannot go back in time to directly observe the temperature of earth. We must make a direct observation for EB to be valid right True? Never would we sell you something based on physics that we cannot directly observe. We physicist are much more moral than that. Next time you are near a physics lab, be sure to stop in and make that direct observation of microwave photons. Oh, or an electron! Oh wait, and be sure a normal force as well!

Who posted the disclaimers about the errors the program made? Why were these posted?

It seems you can answer your own questions if you think about that. My opinion would be that scientists and knowledgeable laypeople contacted the company that produced the documentary who [the company] then issued the disclaimer. So science defends its position against bad science, therefore what is the problem? If you wish confirmation of the what and why, then might I suggest you contact the production company for the documentary and ask them?

To be honest I think this has all been said before in the thread, perhaps it just got lost in the general discussion and you missed it?

No single body is responsible for the way science is presented to the public. Science is so ubiquitous I think it would be impossible for an authority to have that control and for science to still function as effectively as it does. In schools the various education authorities are responsible. In media productions the production company and their subject matter experts are responsible. In books the authors are responsible.

With scientific papers/dissertations etc, peer-review maintains the integrity of the science involved. However, none of the methods of presenting information to the public has this level of control, nor should they. Why, because there aren't enough SME's in the business to proof every single production (whether media, book or internet article). To complain about this is, in my opinion, rather pointless unless you can wave a magic wand and make more scientists out of thin air.

Now, it is not a cop-out to allow this responsibility to the producers of the book, tv documentary etc. If you and some friends were to produce a documentary for PBS would it be the responsibility of 'science' to ensure your information was accurate? Or would it be the responsibility of you and your friends?

I hope you are satisfied with this response, however it is not about skepticism, which I still would like to discuss...and I have yet to receive an answer to the question I have posed both yourself and Iams. I will post it and the reasoning again and hope that, this time, I actually get an answer rather than deafening silence.



I am not using Iams more general definition of simply questioning something as your OP did not suggest this was what you were alluding to and you yourself agreed skepticism is a method, not simply questioning something (which is doubt). A method has a structure and I see no structure in simply doubting.

I am not asking for you to point to the 'evidence' you have posted before. I am asking for an analysis of what skepticism is and whether such an opinion as you have expressed fits that analysis.

*Where is the claim you are skeptical of?
*Does your evidence conclusively support that claim (if it [the claim] exists).

As a further example, I would hold up your skepticism of the claim the early Earth was bombarded much more frequently by comets, asteroids etc as skepticism. A claim was made and you dismissed that claim as the evidence supporting the claim was, in your opinion, not conclusive. No problem with that as skepticism.

I Looooooooooooooooove how camlax TOTALLY skipped the most relevant part of the post.


Could you answer this question please camlax?


And also you in your 15 years of experience, could you point out figureheads like Gould and Dawkins conterparts in the field of Physics and Chemistry who have gone on attack mode against the religious?

Since you are so experienced and all.

Cimber, please note that I am NOT talking about the information itself, but the WAY the information is presented. How many times, how many different ways do I have to say this?


He presents the information as if that IS the way things were, and you well know, science does not support that kind of certainty, only RELIGION does

Thanks for realizing that questioning science does not make us haters of science, but PARTICIPANTS in the scientific process.


Cam you are what's funny here. You're desire to defend your religion is palpable. Look, let me help you out, right now we are talking about SCIENCE and it seems, according to you, to already be such a large subject that you feel like you have not been able to pin me down yet as to what I hate about science (and the reason you can't pin me down on that is because I don't hate or even disrespect science, I LOVE LOVE LOVE science, I respect men who do science correctly, I do not disrespect it), so how about we finish discussing science and then maybe we can use what we learn from our discussion of science and I'll help you mount your attack on religion (I hate religion myself, so we can collaborate on this).


Like I said, I'll gladly help you attack religion after we get done discussing this current topic which is the skepticism brought about by presenting interpretations of scientific data as if they are concrete fact.
If you want, I'll help you mount an attack on ID (whatever part of it you're skeptical about) as soon as we get done with our discussion of how science is being misrepresented to the general public.


Still trying to ridicule my point by making it sound just absolutely wild and untenable aren't you? And you said I sound like a politician, you actually sound like Hillary herself, bud. As a scientist you should be the first one demanding that what you spend your life working on be presented correctly to others, why aren't you? Do you want to deceive people about what you do? Why?


Blah, Blah, Blah, considering the point I'm trying to make your comments were if not stupid, then not really germane to the topic.


Just can't help yourself. Thanks, Cam, you are a perfect example of those who see science as their religion, and HAVE to defend their religion.

OK, so should we hold scientists responsible for developing gun powder, and better metals and ceramics since this is what guns are made of? Should we hold scientists responsible for harnessing the atom, since we would not have had Nagasaki and Hiroshima if scientists hadn't done that? Stop being ridiculous Cam, focus on the topic, please.

You know, Cam, if you were being respectful of me I might care that you are disappointed, but since you are now coming across as a religious zealot, and since I don't care for the respect of religious zealots I'm OK with this. Now, if you want to gain my respect, please stop perceiving this as an attack on you or your religion, and start acknowledging that there is an issue with the way science, especially origins science is being presented to the general public, NOT because the science or the data is wrong, but because the interpretations of that science are being presented as concrete fact.



You know, the interesting thing is that when I spoke to my physics professor about atomic and subatomic particles (and yes, this was 18 years ago) he pointed out that we were not certain that our current interpretations were correct because there were still anomalous readings being observed, and unless and until we were at a point where no anomalies occurred, we obviously did not know what was going on, and therefore our interpretations were still not complete.

For those who seem to think expecting scientists to speak/write in a way that reminds readers that we are talking about belief based on available data, here is an article from the "Front Page News" board here on UM. I will highlight the words which remind the reader. Notice, it's not that hard and really does not take away from the importance of the different interpretation given the data.

Well doesn't that nullify your point? All scientific publications use that language.

No, it really doesn't because they all don't Raptor. And the more geared they are to the general public the less these publications actually do. Truethat has actually provided several examples where this was not the language used.

Exactly

so can we please get to the issue at hand after 22 pages of nonsense.


IF SCIENCE is presented to the public on a tv show or in presentation BY SCIENTISTS (and notice I said BY SCIENTISTS< not producers, not psuedo scientists, but actual respected scientists in the field) and they do NOT present it this way, they are turning it into something else. So when a


SCIENTIST


says






Read more on the link at the bottom. Now I don't give a damn about the science of what they are presenting. But I challenge you to show me how they word it like the above article.


And after going in huge circles I pointed out WHO was making these statements



Mike Zolensky http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/People/zolensky.html

Neil de Grasse Tyson http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/

Bill Hartmann http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/wmh.htm


And all I've heard for the last 14 pages is denial, accusation and excuses. So its pretty clear to me that something is off because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this point (no pun intented)


This show is on NOVA a show that is backed by the AAAS http://www.aaas.org/ which is an organization that pushes for the advancement of science and helps develop the education programs.





THIS IS a respected science leader. And THEY are the ones backing Nova producing this.


So where is the confusion people? If you aren't biased in the favor of the Science Community, you would easily be able to see what I am saying.





The rest of the transcript is here.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3111_origins.html

"So where is the confusion people? "

My confusion is that I can't find anything that says the AAAS backs NOVA or the show in question. Can you please show me where you found this information?

What I found is this: (from the bottom of the transcript)



If you go to the NOVA website you find this:



source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

I'm not saying the AAAS doesn't back the program, but since we are debating accuracy here I'd like to know for sure.

I don't know why I even bother





http://www.aaas.org/news/newsandnotes/inside03.shtml



http://snl.aaas.org/resources_individual.c...7&Grade=K-2


Recommends using Nova as a source here.



Awaits yet another excuse or reason to dismiss this....


Also can't help but notice a sudden lack of posting from the mad frenzy crowd.

Hmmm so they don't actually back it now, probably why you had to go to the archives to find it.

Sure I can answer both of your questions for you. If it is a TV show, geared toward entertainment, then the media or its producers are responsible for the disclaimer that these are the views and opinions expressed by the people on the show, not science. I am not sure how that is a cop out. If you produce the television show and edit it in a way as to present it as fact, then that is your responsibility.

And its pretty obvious that the media itself feels that way to some extent as they do add disclaimers the majority of the time, now you can argue about the relevance of the disclaims and how fine print they are and you would have a point.


As far as Physicists and Chemists who speak out against religion? Sure there is a lot of them. You just want a brief list off the top of my head?

Steven Weinberg~Physicist
Carl Sagan~Physicist
Albert Einstein (at least against organized religion)
Bertrand Russell~ Mathematician, philosopher
James Watson~Co-Father of DNA, Chemist
Isaac Asimov~Biochemist


Off the top of my head, and my head is pretty tired right now so excuse me if I forgot any big ones.

Ok, if you want to think science is my religion, then thats fine. You can believe whatever you wish, everyone can be entitled to their own delusions I suppose.



We cant move on till you finish answering the questions.


So a simple, Yes we should disclaimer it all or No and what parts we should and should not disclaimer will be sufficient.




Iams, you sounded like you were getting wet there for a minute, maybe you thought I had forgot the above questions? Who knows? I am not ridiculing your point, you either care about people and feel they need to be told explicitly the difference between theory and fact, provable data and unprovable data etc, or you don't. Which is it?



Uh, did you quote the wrong thing there buddy? Were talking about warning labels not sure what that has to do with science as a religion.......Put down the eighth of mushrooms.....Step back from the bong.....Lets read to comprehend.....




I was being sarcastic, not that I think you noticed.



Aww, thats kind cute. Little guy, give me a hug. I am sorry, you think i was not being respectful of you?


.....I am not sure what your point is? Is there one? Did I somehow imply physics understanding of particles was complete?


As a side note, because I love physics. Your teacher was correct. Though, many "anomalies" from 22 years ago we can attribute to QFT today. We still see some degree of anomaly when attempting to measure subatomic particles. Which turn out to be tricky things to measure. Thank you Heisenberg.

Iams,
Maybe I can help you visualize the importance of being able to point specifics, which you keep failing to do.
You say we should be more critical of how science is presented to the public, particularly your beef is with evolutionary theory. Now you keep exclaiming "I know what a theory is", but your short falling seems to be at this point. Theories contain, facts, lots of them. Let me give you an example.

If you say, scientists need to say evolutionary theory is all theory and none of it is provable, then you are adding that tag to things like,

Changes in gene frequency from generation to generation (Observable fact)
Populations produce more offspring then are capable of surviving (Observable fact)
There is a mode for variation, through mutation and phenotypic variation by sexual reproduction (Observable facts)
Isolated populations over time can become new species (Observable fact)
Natural Selection (Observable fact)
Mendel's Laws of Segregation, Dominance, Assortment (All facts and Observable)
The mode of inheritance is through DNA (Fact)


etc etc etc
I mean, sure you can be skeptical of observations if you wish... I find simply ignoring data is much easier for reconciling ones beliefs dont you?
It would also be misleading to say these things are only our best guess. Because, they are not a guess, they are something we observe, a fact of nature if you will. So, play the good little student and post a nice little list of things in evolutionary theory that should be labeled with a disclaimer that reads "this is just our best guess".

Hell man, if you know your evolutionary theory I'll agree with you. It is not that hard to pick out the spots that are best guesses, unless of course, you don't you really know your sh**.

Edit:My mind said this! My fingers said no!

You know I was waiting for someone to say that. I actually posted it and went back to my post and edited it just to see if someone would.


It's not that hard to see if someone supports a cause.

Shaftsbury is your postition that AAAS DOES NOT support Nova? And by support I don't mean PAY FOR IT. I mean suggest that it is a good source for science information? Since the AAAS doesn't have to PAY for everything in order to support it.



Its also regularly rewarded them with Journalism awards. I guess the second link where it recommends the show for second grade educators is not relevant either.

AAAS regards itself as an educator in the field of Science. So is it your argument that if they recommend and reward a show that is not support of the show?

Now you are just being ridiculous. AAAS was instrumental in getting NOVA off the ground. Unless they have done a turn around and no longer support the show, its kinda stupid to suggest they don't support it. The last line of the quote I referenced stated TODAY the show reaches 8 million viewers. This was not from an archive but a modern BOAST of how long AAAS has supported Nova.



The bottom line here is not PROOF beyond a shadow of a doubt but rather "Is there reason to make me pause and regard what comes out of the field of Evolution with a skepitcal eye?"


And there is.


THAT is what this debate is about. Is there reason to be skeptical? Is there reason to think there might be a slip from science to agenda.

I believe there is based on the information I have shown here and also based on a few years of reading and watching. This show is not an isolated incident.

As I stated earlier none of you have bothered to actually watch the show so why are you blindly defending something.


Yes Carl Sagan comes to mind as well Camlax that's the one person I thought of. And when Carl Sagan wrote Science Fiction it was REFERRED to as "science fiction."

When Isaac Asimov wrote science fiction, it was referred to AS SCIENCE FICTION, both these men were able to separate between science fiction.

Thank you for that because you chose exactly the examples I was hoping you would.


You can see that when these men made leaps of faith with regard to their science it was carefully referred to as FANTASY and Science FICTION. NOT scientific opinion.


Anyway Camlax is doing his best to derail this topic with personal attack and a barrage of unrelated statements.

This is not about science and its not about religion. Its about the field of Evolution and how prominent Scientists in the field are presenting their fantasy as fact.

And if the disclaimer to the video was only issued AFTER it was attacked for doing that, you can hardly suggest that it was in place before hand.

You are guessing Camlax as to why the producers issued the disclaimer. Its was a REACTIVE disclaimer.

Ok, I'm starting to understand true's comment much earlier.

Are you purposefully ignoring what I have now stated several times?

MY ISSUE, AT THIS TIME IS NOT WITH THE SCIENCE OF THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION OR OTHER ORIGIN SCIENCES.

MY ISSUE IS WITH HOW THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS 100% CONCRETE, NO-DOUBT-ABOUT-IT FACT, WHICH IS IN ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION TO WHAT SCIENCE IS.

Waits for the "You're just saying that 'cause you think Jesus told ya to" comment.

See post #363.

The word you used was “BACK” not support, that has a totally different context. When you “back” something it implies that you stand behind it both in principal and in content. By the way NOVA is a series it’s not a show, if you re-read that transcript you will see that the documentary was independently produced for Nova.

“A Pioneer Film & TV production for NOVA/WGBH and Channel 4.
A Thomas Levenson Productions and Unicorn Projects, Inc. production for WGBH/Boston.
The Day the Earth was Born, Creation © Channel Four Television Corporation MMII
Origins, Earth is Born © 2004 WGBH Educational Foundation
All rights reserved
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 9814643. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. "

I would also suggest that you have a good look at the bolded section, it states very clearly that the author(s) of the material are responsible for it’s content.



No my argument is, that in both the documentaries that you have presented as proof of an “agenda” by the science community, the authors/producers of the individual show are solely responsible for it’s content, and that the views expressed within the documentaries are not necessarily those of the groups paying for the show or the series that the show airs on.



There you go again twisting your own words around, the word was “back” not support, there is no evidence to support your claim that they currently fund or have any input into the series. I never said they didn’t “support” NOVA , why would I ? I love the series.




Now this is the part I don’t understand, are you lumping all science into Evolutionary theory? You do realize that many of the sciences are not based on evolution, and whether or not the theory is correct has absolutely no bearing on them?

In geology for example, much of our knowledge of early earth comes from people in the petroleum industry and related fields. Their “agenda” is to find hydrocarbons/precious metals/minerals not to advance the theory of evolution.

I haven’t had the opportunity to view either of the shows, I know that one will be airing again early this month so I’m going to try and watch it then. I don't necessarily disagree with what any of the scientists said in the documentaries, because I haven't read/heard their evidence, but i also haven't seen you provide any evidence that contradicts them. (but I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wron)

I understand that iams. But you still need to be able to point to which interpretations of data is being presented in an incorrect way. There are concrete facts in evolutionary theory, do you have a problem with those being presented as concrete facts? If not, and I would hope not, then you need to be able to state what parts of evolutionary theory you have qualms with? Got it?

So if you could, please post the parts you have a problem with. If you have a problem with the whole theory, then that is just as irresponsible/ignorant as saying all of evolutionary theory is fact or concrete.

Theories in science are large spiderwebs that connect many points, some of these points are directly observable facts of life. There is no interpretation of them necessary, because they dictate what they are, by observation.

Really? What do you consider concrete facts of evolution?

Since you can't use science to do so since
SOURCE

what are you basing that "concreteness" on?

I was just pointed in the direction of this thread, please forgive me if I don't intently read all of it before posting an observation. There are indeed observable facts that support evolution. Camlax covered a few here:



Basically, our knowledge of DNA over whelmingly supports evolution. Now, folks can (and will) think/believe whatever they please, but the theory of evolution is about as far from science fiction fantasy as it gets.

I did not read the opening post. But, I just wanted to preface by saying I am agnostic (don't know what or wherefore, prior to the Big Bang). The point I wanted to make is that the subject of molecular biology, specifically the assembly of basic cell structures, is an interesting area of research. I have not read much, but what I have invites one to examine their ideas about the earliest life forms and how it might have occured.

Someone I respect does not believe in heaven. He thinks the Bible says that a day of judgement will happen, someday, and until then, the natural Universe is what prevails. How much regarding salvation is literal, I don't know. But, he thinks that until sometime in the unknown future, the grave is as far as anyone goes (aside from offspring, of course).

I gave you multiple examples Iams. Saying there are things which may get over turned is a correct statement. That is not to say everything could/will be overturned. There are observations, which as I also said, require no interpretation, the observation delegates the fact. I'll grab one off the previous list I posted for convenience, but concrete facts in evolution go much farther than those things. Let's say, Changes in gene frequency from generation to generation. This is a fact of nature, a law if you will (though we don't tend to label things that way anymore). There is no need to extrapolate a meaning from your observation, your observation is the meaning. The meaning being, that for a population there will be a change, however small, in gene frequencies over generations. That is not a disputable part of evolution, it happens. You can purchase some fruit flies and see it yourself.

The point is, I agree with you, presentation of science should be done with care, especially given the lack of scientific thought that seems to permeate through our public. But as the thread entails, skepticism is a method, a method we use in science and a method we can use in our everyday lives.

Simply saying "Evolutionary theory is presented as concrete fact to the public is irresponsible", is an irresponsible statement. Scientific theories are huge, they contain years of work, years of research, thousands of facts, observations, tested hypotheses etc. Some parts of a theory are more explained and understood than others, its these others we need to remain skeptical of to ensure we are updating our understandings. It is also the less understood parts of the theory we should be most careful with our wording.

Know, we all know you are a religious (at least theistically) person, but the fact remains. If you chose to discount all of evolutionary theory as "a best guess", then you are taking a stance based on belief, skepticism as a position. To use it a method you need to continue in your logical dissection of its presentation.

No, it is not enough to simply state all of evolutionary theory is presented incorrectly, because (like the parts I pointed out) there are many aspects of it that are extremely well understood, based on observable fact, and are concrete evidence for the whole theory.

I mean, you are more than welcome to dismiss the whole presentation of evolutionary theory, but know you are taking a position based on belief.

This is exactly your problem. You treat anything that you can't replicate in your kitchen as nothing more than witch-craft.

As an afterthought, I think you realized the relevance to need to point out which parts of evolutionary theory are the "unsound" ones that should be presented with a disclaimer. I am guessing this because of how quickly you just again, skirted actually answering any questions. Did you see how that went? Let me replay it.

Iams: Shouts his point is in the presentation!
Camlax: Explains patiently again, probably more clearly this time, why he needs to point out the specifics.
Iams: Asks camlax, to present concrete evidence and what makes them concrete to avoid answering the question.
Lilly:Points out, information has been presented of concrete observational facts in evolutionary theory.
Camlax: Asks Iams again, to present which points in evolutionary theory need to be carefully presented due to the not well known, or lax interpretation of data involved.
Iams: Another diversionary tactic? Or crickets? Who knows, only time will tell with these things.

You are still not getting Cam, although you seem to have taken a step closer. Why do you feel the necessity of bringing my spiritual stance into the conversation? There is nothing I have said in this discussion that has to do with spirituality, I am exploring an issue having to do with science and the way science is communicated... and maybe the way scientists forget what science CAN and CAN'T do, none of that has anything to do with my spiritual stance. I am much more than just my spiritual stance, I am an intelligent, inquisitive, rational person who can view things from many perspectives, so, since I am leaving my spiritual views out of this conversation, I would appreciate if you would stop trying to somehow tie them in to this conversation.

And I think you are actually now giving an indication of why there is an issue with the way evolution science is being presented. As much as we may want to say that we know something for a fact, that is not something we can actually state from a scientific standpoint is it? I'm not talking about conventional wisdom, I'm not talking about what we are sure of because we observe it regularly, over and over and so, therefore it MUST be so, I am talking about how we can speak about something from a scientific perspective. There is not the certainty that we see when we take 2 pencils out of one drawer and two pencils out of a box and count them and find there are four pencils, no matter how many times we count them, no matter what any other conditions are, no matter how often they are counted or by who, they will always be four. My understanding is that from a scientific standpoint there is NOTHING we can talk about with that sort of certainty.

It is one challenged belief of mine that there is more to the Universe, than meets the eye. In the meantime, sound reasoning makes most of the world go round.

I read the OP, and would say that persons with an innate sense of curiosity will likely relish the scientific method, and its attendant use of skepticism.

In a competitive world, we are driven to enhance the wealth of our knowledge through theoretical and applied research. I am going to straddle the line and say "I prefer skepticism as both position and method, while maintaining a thirst for knowledge".

As for some transcendency or other dimension to the Universe or whatever, and our relation as humans to that, I have no answer. But, the faith drives some good friends of mine.

Which theory of evolution? Would you care to post it? Or Camlax for that matter. Which theory of evolution is as far from science fiction fantasy as it gets.

You are hopping on us to present theory why not start it off. Could you please post WHICH theory of evolution has been proven? And I'm not saying proven 100 percent, but just basically beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because frankly you all are doing the same thing you are accusing us of doing.


Blind supporters of evolution please post what you think is Absolute. What do you think is undoubtable.

This is not meant to be an entrapment. I think its important to get all the cards on the table and since me and Iams have posted for pages to no avail lets turn it around a bit.

Please post which aspects of evolution you think are BEYOND SKEPTICISM. Then lets go from there. Because the topic of the thread is Skepticism not evolution.

So which theories of evolution would you consider FACT. The details please.


thanks in advance
Truethat.

maybe,but i dont know that is a hard question to answer without looking foolish.good answer.

Dude, are you handicapped? This is like talking to a wall, that only speaks Chinese. I guess you can state you have a problem with the presentation of evolutionary theory, that is fine. It is a belief however, until you can list what specific aspects of evolutionary theory are being presented incorrectly. Like I said, if you just want to say "Yea, you know what cam? It is my belief that evolutionary theory is not being presented to the public correctly", I'll say "You bet, Iams, you are entitled to your belief!". However, acting as if you are being skeptical, in any sense of a methodical practice is a joke.


Do you understand that Iams? You keep posting how intelligent you are, do you need to compliment your own intelligence to feel adequate? Cause you are certainly failing at answering a simple question, something that someone with multiple self-aggrandizing posts parading their own "intellectual capabilities" should have little trouble doing.

Do we need to get someone to translate this Spanish for you? Maybe it will be easier to understand the question, if I type it real slow like this,

W h a t - p a r t s - o f - e v o l u t i o n a r y - t h e o r y - a r e - b e i n g - p r e s e n t e d - i n c o r r e c t l y?

List them out in some kind of orderly format, you know like
A.
1.
2.
B.

etc, you know, something neat and clear to understand. For someone who is obviously so smart you should have no problem with that.

And for those of you following along with this woeful waltz of question dodging

He is going to dodge it again, watch it closely now!

Are we confused on the theory thing again? There is only theory of biological evolution within science....

You realize, that scientist have moved past proving evolution correct? At this point there is enough evidence we know it happened, now its only a matter of working out the exact lineages. Kind of like fine tunning your car.




Jesus Jack Jumpin Christ, You still don't understand what a scientific theory is do you?