Evolution Theory is Error

CDfm

UU wrote: »

Not everything is clear cut in Evolution I will admit that because it isn't a process we can witness in out short existence and there are many gaps certainly in fossil records........

And if it's some ridiculous Creationism or the Intelligent Design theory you happen to accept there is always room over in the Christianity forum for you I'm sure people will welcome your views more there.

Well both the Bible and the Qur'an are false in my opinion.

Your views on evolution are very Catholic - that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven because of the lack of physical evidence.The Catholic Church and Church of Englan and many other mainstream churches accept evolution and have done for a very long time.

A bit harsh trying to foist a scientist back on us ODCs - we are all about morality, spirituality morality and all that.

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

...Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

I'm not so sure about those two. Can someone back me up? As far as I'm aware the scientific theory of evolution is exactly that.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious doctrine, and ID is creationism in a cheap tux.

pH

Dades wrote: »

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious doctrine, and ID is creationism in a cheap tux.

It's a point I'm not quite clear on myself. If a theory is falsifiable and has been shown to be false then is it still a "scientific theory". For example is it possible today to call Lamarckian Evolution or Luminiferous aether scientific, in that both were once scientific theories and falsified, do they remain scientific?

I agree that some of creationism is unfalsifiable (and on that basis not scientific) but some of it is falsifiable, and those bits have been shown by evidence to be false. Now I agree in the political and ideological media battle it might be extremely unwise to concede the word "scientific" to any of it but that may be unfair and disingenuous.

Dades

pH wrote: »

Now I agree in the political and ideological media battle it might be extremely unwise to concede the word "scientific" to any of it but that may be unfair and disingenuous.

I think it's disingenuous to describe something as "scientific" when results can only be interpreted in such a way as to support a predetermined conclusion.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Your views on evolution are very Catholic - that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven because of the lack of physical evidence.The Catholic Church and Church of Englan and many other mainstream churches accept evolution and have done for a very long time.

A bit harsh trying to foist a scientist back on us ODCs - we are all about morality, spirituality morality and all that.

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Science doesn't prove anything, it just builds models of the natural world. When a model is so well supported that we're pretty certain that it is very accurate it gets promoted to the status of "theory". Evolution is a theory. Creationism and ID are not.

pH wrote: »

For example is it possible today to call Lamarckian Evolution or Luminiferous aether scientific, in that both were once scientific theories and falsified, do they remain scientific?

They'd be more accurately described as failed hypotheses, no?

pH

Dades wrote: »

I think it's disingenuous to describe something as "scientific" when results can only be interpreted in such a way as to support a predetermined conclusion.

You see I'm not so sure, take Christian creationism, it can be tested as follows:

We can measure the age of the earth using various methods, if it's older than the 6000-10000 years the theory suggests then the theory is falsified.

Creationism would imply that God created species as we find them today, they should appear pretty much instantaneously in the fossil record.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, instead of jumping on the unscientific bandwagon it might be more honest to just say "Sorry we've looked at the evidence and creationism is just plain wrong".

I agree that some branches of creationism are as you say about interpreting the evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, but I still hold that "The earth and all the creatures on it was created 6,000 years ago by God" is a falsifiable claim that scientific evidence has shown to be wrong. My question is that can you call that "scientific", if not would it be correct today to say that Newton's work on gravity and planetary motions is no longer scientific.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

They'd be more accurately described as failed hypotheses, no?

OK I agree with your hypotheses/theory distinction, but that rather avoids the question as to whether they're still "scientific".

robindch

pH wrote: »

It's a point I'm not quite clear on myself. If a theory is falsifiable and has been shown to be false then is it still a "scientific theory".

"Theory" means a conceptual framework which explains a set of observations in a consistent and comprehensible manner. "Scientific" means the framework is falsifiable and therefore open to peer-reviewed, evidence-based disproof.

I reckon that a "scientific theory" still remains scientific after it's been disproved, though it's debatable if it can still be referred to as a "theory" since it will no longer explain all relevant observations.

But you can't have a conceptual framework which is 99% evidence-based and 1% undisprovable magic. You're either science all the way or you're not and creationism is certainly not.

Zillah

I'd argue that describing an idea/hypothesis as "scientific" is redundant. We can use a scientific approach to attempt to support or falsify it. If it amasses sufficient support it becomes a "theory", in which case "scientific theory" is assumed: all theories are scientific.

Though it does beg the question, what if a very well supported theory is eventually falsified? Has that ever happened? Has a hypothesis ever reached a point in modern science where it was at one point accepted as solid theory, and then falsified later?

Dades

Hmmm.

Just because someone claims a theory to be true, doesn't allow them to label it 'scientific'.
Think of the pirates/global warming hypothesis!

Before a theory is even entertained as science, the proponant should be able to produce at least one piece of scientific evidence that warrants looking into.

I also feel that because of the predetermined agenda, the whole point is moot. It's all about religion.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Think of the pirates/global warming theory!

Hypothesis. Semantics matter in this sort of discussion :pac:

Dades

Edited - just for you!

Zillah

Dance puppet, dance!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Dance puppet, dance!

Watch it!

happyoutscan

Gareth..... Exactly what type of a 'scientist' are you???

Thomas_S_Hunterson

happyoutscan wrote: »

Gareth..... Exactly what type of a 'scientist' are you???

He's not. He lied. He deliberately sinned. He's going to hell.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Creationism and ID are, at best, big bundles of refuted hypotheses. Science builds models based on data. These guys have decided what the model is a priori and are trying to make the data fit the model. So what they're doing is just about as opposite to science as you can get whilst still masquerading as scientists. That's why they spend so much of their time attacking the data that supports evolution, rather than publishing new data that supports their model. If they can demonstrate 10% error in a given bit of data, that to them says they can move the data to wherever they like. A 10% error in radiometric dating on a 100 million year old fossil somehow calls the whole thing into question and means, quite conveniently, that the fossil is 10,000 years old. If they can't move the data, they'll find some uncertainty- any uncertainty- that allows them to dismiss the data entirely. Unsurprisingly, the more a piece of data contradicts their model, the looser their criteria for marking it as an outlier.

Their followers don't know enough about how science actually works to spot any of these tricks.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

I reckon that a "scientific theory" still remains scientific after it's been disproved, though it's debatable if it can still be referred to as a "theory" since it will no longer explain all relevant observations.

In my opinion, if its still scientific, but is no longer actually true, that makes it science fiction: you might get an interesting movie or book from it, but you wouldn't teach it in school.

pH

OK - I think we're all in agreement that certain claims are not scientific - like say "Jesus Christ can forgive sins". It's unmeasurable, untestable and nothing to do with science.

However the claim that "man was directly created by a supernatural God 6,000 years ago" is testable and has been falsified. Yes there are those that won't accept the evidence, and I agree with much that AH has said above (these people certainly aren't doing science) but I think the main problem with much of ID and Creationism is that it is utterly and entirely wrong. Arguing that it is unscientific seems to me to sidestep this crucial point.

Dades wrote:

Before a theory is even entertained as science, the proponant should be able to produce at least one piece of scientific evidence that warrants looking into.

What about say Einstein and his theory of Special relativity, which Einstein had no evidence for. We need to avoid a chicken and egg situation, someone had to take it seriously and then perform observations which confirmed it.

Zillah wrote:

Though it does beg the question, what if a very well supported theory is eventually falsified? Has that ever happened? Has a hypothesis ever reached a point in modern science where it was at one point accepted as solid theory, and then falsified later?

They've been *ahem* superseded

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

OK - I think we're all in agreement that certain claims are not scientific - like say "Jesus Christ can forgive sins". It's unmeasurable, untestable and nothing to do with science.

However the claim that "man was directly created by a supernatural God 6,000 years ago" is testable and has been falsified.

The supernatural God bit is non-testable.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

What about say Einstein and his theory of Special relativity, which Einstein had no evidence for.

I can't say I know much about SR, but surely there was enough evidence that contradicted the prior model that required Einstein to create a new set of hypotheses?

GR was prompted by all kinds of bits that didn't add up- orbits inexplicable by Newton etc. What prompted SR?

pH

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The supernatural God bit is non-testable.

OK but that bit surely can be taken care of with logic. If we can show we weren't created 6,000 years ago, then we've also shown we weren't created 6,000 years ago by a supernatural God (or by a multidimensional alien called Eric and so on)

Again this has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God, merely creationism.

On a side note, imagine supernatural Gods existing say as in Greek myths, living on Mount Olympus and interacting with us on a daily basis as described by Greek mythology. Would they not be testable? Could we not establish that they existed? I don't see why a supernatural God is non-testable by definition, if say Jesus hadn't headed back to heaven and was here doing miracles everyday how would that wouldn't that change things?

Dades

pH wrote: »

I think the main problem with much of ID and Creationism is that it is utterly and entirely wrong. Arguing that it is unscientific seems to me to sidestep this crucial point.

Well I think it highlights the point!

Allowing them on the scientific field of battle simply allows them to baffle the less educated with clever sounding arguments based on bad science, or bastardization of good science.

This can be avoided by simply declaring: it's not SCIENCE it's RELIGION.

ChocolateSauce

Dades wrote: »

Well I think it highlights the point!

Allowing them on the scientific field of battle simply allows them to baffle the less educated with clever sounding arguments based on bad science, or bastardization of good science.

This can be avoided by simply declaring: it's not SCIENCE it's RELIGION.

+1

I'm one of those people who thinks it's best not to argue with creationists. If they don't understand something I'll explain it, but beyond that giving them time just encourages them.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Well I think it highlights the point!

Allowing them on the scientific field of battle simply allows them to baffle the less educated with clever sounding arguments based on bad science, or bastardization of good science.

This can be avoided by simply declaring: it's not SCIENCE it's RELIGION.

Dades - thats not fair. I started the its Science not Religion racket.

I think its far better to keep them Creationists arguing with scientists and well away from questions of theology,morals and philosophy.

AtomicHorror

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

+1

I'm one of those people who thinks it's best not to argue with creationists. If they don't understand something I'll explain it, but beyond that giving them time just encourages them.

I'm gonna give my token "why we fight" speech.

It's not so much about convincing them as it is about stopping the rot. Pseudoscience that masquerades as real science devalues real science in the eyes of the public. It promotes the perception that science is built on unfounded assumptions, that it is arbitrary, spurious. Creationists use the language of science to make their position seem more complex, as complex as possible really, to deflect casual investigation. This sort of thing adds to the perception that science is unapproachable, mysterious, not understandable by the average person.

So, if you can't possibly understand things like health risks, you let Mr. Scientist authoritatively tell you what's what. That's when it all goes wrong. That climate allows crap like the MMR scare to actually influence policy and public opinion.

People need to know what is science and what is crap. We're not trying to convince J C. He's a lost cause. We're trying to show people how to tell the difference themselves. Creationism is an easy target, and probably not the most relevant at all. But since I'm a biologist, it's one piece of pseudoscience that gets to me. So that's where I do my fighting.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

People need to know what is science and what is crap. We're not trying to convince J C. He's a lost cause.

He wouldn't give up on trying to save you.

ChocolateSauce

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm gonna give my token "why we fight" speech.

It's not so much about convincing them as it is about stopping the rot. Pseudoscience that masquerades as real science devalues real science in the eyes of the public. It promotes the perception that science is built on unfounded assumptions, that it is arbitrary, spurious. Creationists use the language of science to make their position seem more complex, as complex as possible really, to deflect casual investigation. This sort of thing adds to the perception that science is unapproachable, mysterious, not understandable by the average person.

So, if you can't possibly understand things like health risks, you let Mr. Scientist authoritatively tell you what's what. That's when it all goes wrong. That climate allows crap like the MMR scare to actually influence policy and public opinion.

People need to know what is science and what is crap. We're not trying to convince J C. He's a lost cause. We're trying to show people how to tell the difference themselves. Creationism is an easy target, and probably not the most relevant at all. But since I'm a biologist, it's one piece of pseudoscience that gets to me. So that's where I do my fighting.

Oh, we should certainly actively promote evolution to "non-combatants". Stopping the rot is best done by "getting there first", as it were. Science should let everyone know why it doesn't/shouldn't debate with creationists. I'm on board with you 110% on this issue. I'm a chemist, so although evolution isn't my field I do appreciate the issue (in my discipline, ignorance comes in the form of people being afraid of substances because they have either false or exaggerated ideas of what they actually do...the number of times people have said to me they don't trust something because it has "chemicals" in it makes my head spin!).

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

He wouldn't give up on trying to save you.

I'm pretty sure he's just trying to save me because it annoys me :pac: