- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
You're right, I didn't.
If one theory has no supporting evidence, it's not a theory.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!
- Thread starter Chris Pierce
- Start date
- Status
You're right, I didn't.
If one theory has no supporting evidence, it's not a theory.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 27,445
I realize that. The original post was in the vernacular so that's how I was responding.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
They have that in high schools. I didn't take it because I can't imagine anything I care less about, so I don't know what it's all about, but it does exist.
For the dont use one to attack the other comment, really? They both are conflicting ideas about the start of life. Two very different explinations for the world around us. One dissproves the other no matter what side your on. There is no mushy happy middle ground on this topic. They are not unrelated they both explain the same thing, life, from opposing sides.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
You're wrong.
Religion has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with religion.
The theory of evolution does not speculate on the formation of life on earth, only the change of life into different forms. The Theory of Evolution does not deny the existence of god. It does not have anything to do with a higher power. The only thing evolution involves is species changing over time. Evolution does not disprove or prove anything. The evidence strongly supports the explanation for evolution, that's it.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,315
I don't think Nixelplix is being a pedantic ass about insisting on proper use of the word "theory". When discussing the topic of the diversity of life, and explanations for the observed diversity of life, we're talking about a scientific subject, and the jargon of science is important. A newscaster would be pilloried on BladeForums for referring to a Ka-Bar used in a crime as a "dagger". We knife knuts use more precise terminology when discussing knives because we want other knife people to know what we're talking about. A non-knife person might not care about the difference between a dagger, a bowie, a kuhkri, etc, but if they come in here and want to talk knives, we try to educate them, and (to some extent) insist that they use the right terms.
Similarly, when discussing epistemology, you have to use more precise terms to differentiate between similar concepts. In common usage, a "hypothesis" and a "theory" are used interchangeably, but in science, they're very different. A "hypothesis" is basically an educated guess (note: _NOT_ a "wild-ass-guess") of an explanation for something. If a hypothesis is tested, evidence mounts pointing to it as being correct, it explains new findings, predicts things that we later find to be true, etc, it becomes a "theory". A theory is the strongest form of explanation for phenomena in science. Referring to something in science as a theory is not the equivalent of saying "Yeah, we think this might could be the way it happens," but rather, "All existing evidence points to this being the way it happens." In this sense, evolution is indeed a theory.
In another sense, though, evolution is a fact. How can it be both? If you're talking about the explanation for why we observe life steadily growing more diverse in the fossil record, you're talking about the "theory" that connects and explains this observation. On the other hand, if you're talking about the observed change in various species that happens in the modern day, then you are observing the fact of evolution happening. (I would be happier, personally, if there were two separate terms in use for this, but alas...) Things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are observed instances of evolution, but there are many others, including instances in plants, insects, mammals... you name it. So, in this sense, it's very proper to teach evolution as a fact... because it happens, and we've seen it happen.
I do know what Codger seems to be saying about not bringing religion into the mix, but the problem is that religious objections are the only objections to evolution being taught as it should be in schools. Creationists keep trying to dress their beliefs up as science (e.g. "creation science" "intelligent design"), but the explanation they're promoting is, quite simply, "God did it." They have a concept, they have an explanation, but it's not a "theory", or even a "hypothesis"; it's dogma. Were it not for religious objections, there would be zero controversy to teaching evolution in schools. This makes it rather difficult to not bring up religion when discussing the topic.
Similarly, when discussing epistemology, you have to use more precise terms to differentiate between similar concepts. In common usage, a "hypothesis" and a "theory" are used interchangeably, but in science, they're very different. A "hypothesis" is basically an educated guess (note: _NOT_ a "wild-ass-guess") of an explanation for something. If a hypothesis is tested, evidence mounts pointing to it as being correct, it explains new findings, predicts things that we later find to be true, etc, it becomes a "theory". A theory is the strongest form of explanation for phenomena in science. Referring to something in science as a theory is not the equivalent of saying "Yeah, we think this might could be the way it happens," but rather, "All existing evidence points to this being the way it happens." In this sense, evolution is indeed a theory.
In another sense, though, evolution is a fact. How can it be both? If you're talking about the explanation for why we observe life steadily growing more diverse in the fossil record, you're talking about the "theory" that connects and explains this observation. On the other hand, if you're talking about the observed change in various species that happens in the modern day, then you are observing the fact of evolution happening. (I would be happier, personally, if there were two separate terms in use for this, but alas...) Things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are observed instances of evolution, but there are many others, including instances in plants, insects, mammals... you name it. So, in this sense, it's very proper to teach evolution as a fact... because it happens, and we've seen it happen.
I do know what Codger seems to be saying about not bringing religion into the mix, but the problem is that religious objections are the only objections to evolution being taught as it should be in schools. Creationists keep trying to dress their beliefs up as science (e.g. "creation science" "intelligent design"), but the explanation they're promoting is, quite simply, "God did it." They have a concept, they have an explanation, but it's not a "theory", or even a "hypothesis"; it's dogma. Were it not for religious objections, there would be zero controversy to teaching evolution in schools. This makes it rather difficult to not bring up religion when discussing the topic.
So, what you're saying is that evolution does not, in any way, conflict with a literal (i.e: 6,000 year old Earth, Garden of Eden, e.t.c,) interpretation of the Bible?
I agree with what you're saying about how Evolution is not at all opposed to the idea of the existence of a God, but I don't see how one could reconcile evolution with their belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
You say that the only thing evolution involves is species' changing over time, which is true. (More or less.) But the time involved is measured in billions of years, not thousands.
Not to mention that whole all-species-created-at-once thing. (Along with every other example I haven't said anything about.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
It's not at all too picky to insist on using terminology properly. You wouldn't want your doctor to tell you that your hip bone wasn't jiving with your leg bone.
As far as "creation science" goes. An argument against religion pretending to be science is different that an argument against religion. We should be leaving religion out of evolution discussions, everyone should, not just one side or the other. I'll stand by it till my dying breath that these two things are not related to one another and need to be kept separate. But more importantly, we need to be careful when arguing against, "creation science," because it is a touchy subject and it is not necessary to attack all religion based on one group trying to pass their beliefs off as science. In fact, it's not even necessary to attack their beliefs. The only thing that needs to be done is to point out at every turn, why "creation science" is not science, why it should not be taught as an alternative in science classrooms, there is enough evidence piled up to support the Theory of Evolution, and enough lack of it to dismiss, "creation science" as a science that we don't need to resort to challenging all of peoples faith. When you start telling people that everything they believe in is wrong because of one scientific advancement, that says nothing of the sort, you start losing people, and that's where the trouble starts. And yes, you do have to use a bit of tact when discussing it so that you don't cross the line, but it will be worth it in the end. An argument for evolution is not an argument against faith in a higher power, and it shouldn't be acceptable to use it as one no matter how hard people stamp their feet or how long they hold their breath to justify doing so.
As far as "creation science" goes. An argument against religion pretending to be science is different that an argument against religion. We should be leaving religion out of evolution discussions, everyone should, not just one side or the other. I'll stand by it till my dying breath that these two things are not related to one another and need to be kept separate. But more importantly, we need to be careful when arguing against, "creation science," because it is a touchy subject and it is not necessary to attack all religion based on one group trying to pass their beliefs off as science. In fact, it's not even necessary to attack their beliefs. The only thing that needs to be done is to point out at every turn, why "creation science" is not science, why it should not be taught as an alternative in science classrooms, there is enough evidence piled up to support the Theory of Evolution, and enough lack of it to dismiss, "creation science" as a science that we don't need to resort to challenging all of peoples faith. When you start telling people that everything they believe in is wrong because of one scientific advancement, that says nothing of the sort, you start losing people, and that's where the trouble starts. And yes, you do have to use a bit of tact when discussing it so that you don't cross the line, but it will be worth it in the end. An argument for evolution is not an argument against faith in a higher power, and it shouldn't be acceptable to use it as one no matter how hard people stamp their feet or how long they hold their breath to justify doing so.
When an explanation for something is challenged, those explanations will forever be in conflict. I agree george washington, religion should be left out of science altogether. But it has pushed its way in were it doesnt belong. Creationists asked to be in the debate. They pushed to be taught in schools. They brougght bibles as historical evidence. No they shouldnt be treated with kid gloves thats insane. And faith is used as proof, so fair game.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
You're right, it's not possible. My point is we shouldn't even try to change this point of view for the minority that choose to believe this. It's never going to happen and what ends up happening is a crap slinging contest between science and religion that should never be happening in the first place. The only time religion should even come up in an evolution discussion is when it tries to push itself off as a science, and then, only to explain why "creation" is not valid scientific theory. Let literal translators of the bible keep their beliefs, whether they make sense to us or not, only go against their claims that what they believe should be accepted as an alternative science. Because a majority of people, even hard core religious folks, have a hard time with the earth being 6000 years old, even church leaders worldwide accept that the earth is much older. These are the people who need to see that we're not attacking their religion, not literal translators of the bible. I've already made a suggestion to literal translators earlier, which I won't repeat again, but that's as far as I will go.
Last edited:
Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 62,324
Go back and revisit the OP post. The question was not which is right or wrong. It was what do you, as an individual, believe.
As to terminology, when a scientist speaks to a scientist, he/she is expected to use terms which have a specific meaning in that very discipline. When a scientist ( scientist enthusiast or student) wishes to discuss science with laymen, they should consider the broader accepted meaning of terms. The disciplines of science don't own the words, they simply redefine them for use within their particular discipline.
As to "creation science", I agree with most that it was ill-conceived and has since been widely misused. Likewise, evolution science is frequently co-opted by evangelist athiests as proof that their religion (or beliefs about religion) are the correct ones to the exclusion of all others. By their efforts to self-affirm, they continue to make it an issue in religion.
My own beliefs are, if I understand him correctly, very close to those of the OP. I do believe that God created the world and all in it. The only thing in question is the mechanisms He used.
By the way, did you see where the scientists just discovered fossilized space algae in a meterorite?
As to terminology, when a scientist speaks to a scientist, he/she is expected to use terms which have a specific meaning in that very discipline. When a scientist ( scientist enthusiast or student) wishes to discuss science with laymen, they should consider the broader accepted meaning of terms. The disciplines of science don't own the words, they simply redefine them for use within their particular discipline.
As to "creation science", I agree with most that it was ill-conceived and has since been widely misused. Likewise, evolution science is frequently co-opted by evangelist athiests as proof that their religion (or beliefs about religion) are the correct ones to the exclusion of all others. By their efforts to self-affirm, they continue to make it an issue in religion.
My own beliefs are, if I understand him correctly, very close to those of the OP. I do believe that God created the world and all in it. The only thing in question is the mechanisms He used.
By the way, did you see where the scientists just discovered fossilized space algae in a meterorite?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
By the way, did you see where the scientists just discovered fossilized space algae in a meterorite?
No, could you send me a link?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 678
Yes, how does a non-deistic evolution supporter address this issue? Religion aside, either people believe there is a supernatural something or there is not. The fence edge is razored, no one can park there and stay happy, agnostics must enjoy the dilemma. Spark of life and all that was either self generated or from somewhere??? For me that is the catch-22 of big bang formation. Intense heat, intense gravity, pressure and outward momentum that is still being measured in the expansion of the observed universe meaning I believe there was a singularity or explosion of some sort that left us with echoes we can study. How does a totally sterile field get the first mold spore or bacterium, how do bacterium organize into cooperating battalions and organize their battalions into primitive multi celled creature? What changes mineral and elements into self regenerating life? And how does that life mutate into kingdoms, phylum, orders, families and species? Mold and fungi are so much not like animals, as plants are so much so again. Sea creatures like coral and anemones are not plants, not animals. Such a range of life with similar goals to continue and perpetuate but each set on such different chassis if you will.
- Status