hrothgar, on Aug 6 2006, 02:01 PM, said:
Out of curiousity, do you accept that the Theory of Gravitation is science? What about the Theory of Special Relativity?
Quoting once more from our good friend the wikipedia
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."
far be it from me to argue with wikipedia (not that i would anyway, i happen to agree with all of that)... but especially note this section: "... In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory..."
this is also from wikipedia: "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition,
or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case."
now i know that not everyone accepts popper's words on this subject as gospel, and that's ok... but it is his view, and i've rarely seen anyone "...admit the possibility.." that evolution (in the macro sense) might not be the end-all of the discussion
i accept both gravitation and special relativity as exactly what they are, theories subject to correction as more and more observable data becomes available... don't you?
Quote
I know what I consider more reasonable...
I know what nearly every scientist considers more reasonable...
I know what the Pope considers more reasonable...
ok, you've answered the question i asked, as has "nearly every scientist" and even "the Pope"... i will take your (and their) word for it that no presupposition entered into it
Quote
The theory of evolution requires that I believe that multiple different complex life forms all evolved from a common single celled ancestor
ok, fair enough... the "theory" of creationism requires that i believe that God created each being "after its own kind"... that's part of my religion, evolution is part of yours, and it appears we each accept those teachings on faith (taken from both of us using the word "believe")
arend said:
Anyway, what's wrong with god having created a universe that allowed us humans to develop via this extremely remarkable mechanism of evolution? Christians all over the world don't seem to have a problem with evolutionary biology; the Christian right in the US is making a problem (faith vs evolution) where non exists, following an interpretation of the bible that would be rejected by a huge majority of Christians world-wide.
i think there's a slight misconception here... while it's true that some on the christian right do make it a matter of faith vs. evolution, it's my understanding that the recent trial on including ID as a counter theory in schools wasn't so much about that (f vs. e) as it was about offering an alternative viewpoint... something as general and seemingly innocent as, "while the vast majority of scientists hold to evolutionary theory as the prime factor in the origin of our species, others believe the world and all in it to be created by a supreme being"... but that, as simple as it sounds, makes some go ballistic
winston said:
But one cannot deny that change indeed takes place and the significance and reason for this change is survivability. Those organisms that have the best mechanisms for adaption have the best chance of survival.
that's true, but evolution isn't defined merely as "change"... maybe it *should* be, but it isn't
Quote
Do we as thinking beings have the right to try to save a dying species that cannot adapt, and how will we ourselves adapt to our own destructivenss? If we destroy the forests that harbor the spotted owl, are we simply a part of the process of evolution to which the spotted owl could not adapt?
that's a good question... i don't know how a darwinist would answer it, from a survival of the fittest point of view
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)