ChrisJGQ

I have my doubts that this is a serious post, but I'll respond anways. The fact that a single element was shown to not exist, as was previously thought, is hardly a massive upheaval in the chemistry world.

Relating to what was said about evolution- Respectable biologists are generally not arguing as to whether evolution itself is likely to be true or not, but on the finer points of the theory itself. Using your logic, I could conclude that if scientists believe the world is round, but some believe it is round in a spherical fashion and some believe elliptical, it probably means that the earth is a square.

KC

Only a creationist would confuse "inference" with "assumption".

Cheers,

KC

GeoTheo

Nothing in Science should ever be questioned. It will halt scientific inquiry.
If you can figure that one out then let me know.

Oolon Colluphid

When someone figures out what he's on about, let me know.

just soyou know, science utterly relies on questioning: both posing questions in the first place, and questioning the results of investigations. Everything in science is (or has been thoroughly in the past) questioned. That's why we can safely rely on its findings.

Oolon

GeoTheo

So why do people get touchy when evolution is questioned? Is it beyond the point of being able to be questioned?

Mageth

Evolutionary theory is questioned all the time. The response to questioning depends on how it's being questioned, IMO.

If it's questioned from a scientific perspective, such as someone proposing an alternative scientific theory, or questioning parts of the current evolutionary theory, there may be opposing sides in the scientific community that argue the scientific merits of their particular "side" for years. Some of these battles can be quite heated "turf wars." But at least the combattants have a common "language" - science - and a common goal - knowledge. In the end Science benefits as existing theories are improved or replaced by better theories.

If, however, it's questioned from a magickal, superstitious, mythical perspective, with no scientific basis, 1) many scientists just ignore the questioning as irrelevant to science; 2) some respond, some more harshly than others, by pointing out the fallacies of superstition in the face of the evidence. I suppose category 2) are the ones you consider as "touchy."

Now turn this around; why do creationists get so touchy when divine creation is questioned? I think creationism is a far better subject for your question "Is it beyond the point of being able to be questioned?

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Might it be, not that it’s questioned, but what the questions are? Could it perhaps be that people get pretty pissed off at seeeing the same old ignorant nonsense brought up time after time? Nonsense that has been refuted over and over, and which just shows that the claimant lacks (often really fundamental) understanding of the subject?

Put simply, yes. There has to come a point where one says ‘okay, that much is resolved, let’s move on’.

This is because every piece of evidence in every scientific field, when it has a bearing on evolution, has further confirmed it.

Or to put it another way, the standard of evidence needed to overthrow something so well evinced has to be pretty outstanding: Nobel prize-winning, in fact. Instead, creationists offer criticisms that people with a mere A level in biology (like me, ferinstance) can see are totally wrong-headed. Of course it may be questioned: question away! But know what you’re talking about.

Cheers, Oolon

GeoTheo

Well, I admit I need to learn a whole lot more about Science before I can really effectively debate any of the very intelligent people on this forum. (mostly you and Scigirl)So I will read and learn what I can. I do however have an intuitive mind and have a knack for finding unusual connections with things. I am guessing that if a theory did ever replace evolution it would fit most of the evidence for descent with modification. It would have to.
So back to the books I go.

RufusAtticus

The accuracy of science cannot be determined by philsophy, religion, politics, or emotion. Considering that evolution-denial questions always amount to one of those four, it's not suprising that evolution-denial hasn't come close to affecting science.

~~RvFvS~~

Starboy

GeoTheo,

You don’t know how happy your comment makes me feel. I have often thought that the exchanges on this forum where pointless tennis matches of truth vs. truth. But it appears that an exchange of ideas may actually take place here! Please do not restrict your studies to science. I would like you to research your religious point of view as well. An argument that is only against something is not nearly as interesting as one that argues for something. Also, perhaps you may turn into one of those rare Christians that really do understand the basis of their own religion.

Starboy