Badfish

Now were talkin' Thanks!

Undercurrent

1) Reiterating the point others have made that the "Theory of Universal Gravitation" is still a theory. Nothing ever really stops being a theory, they just go from being speculative theories to well-confirmed theories.

2) Some aspects of evolution, such as that species do change in morphology and biochemistry over time, and that speciation can occur as a result of this, are very well confirmed. In my opinion these aspects of the theory are at least as well confirmed as heliocentrism is.

3) Of the seven "tenets" that I detailed in my previous post, I'd personally consider none of them more speculative than general relativity is, and all but the 7th and perhaps the 5th I'd consider to be on the same order of certainty as special relativity is.

m.

Asha'man

I hope you will forgive this little diversion, but I am more of an astronomer than a biologist.

There is actually an amazing parallel between evolution and the round earth theory. Standing outside on a summer day, neither one is clearly visible. You can see only a large diversity of species and a wrinkled but fundamentally flat earth.

With the aid of a little science, suddenly things take on a whole new appearance. The curvature of the earth becomes apparent, and so does an amazing fossil record. It doesn’t take much of a leap to see the clear pattern of change in the species alive at any one point of time, just like the spherical nature of the earth pops into view. Looking at life more closely, at the genetic level, and common descent also becomes apparent.

Looking more closely, the question of how arises? At first glance, the answers are simple. The earth is round because the gravitational pressure is stronger than the material strength of the earth. Live evolves due to small changes in the inheritable traits passed from generation to generation. Questioning these observations is pretty absurd, they are scientific facts.

But once all the facts have been uncovered, we aren’t done. We need a theory to explain these facts, to help us understand the whole system, and to make predictions that can be tested. Using these predictions, we can delve deeper, asking better questions and finding more facts.

We don’t really have a complete theory of planetary formation, of how a region of interstellar dust and gas collapses into a star and surrounding planets. We know generally what happened, but not to any great specificity. Using Hubble photographs of star forming regions in nearby nebulae, we know what a few steps look like, but we don’t know all the factors involved. We also don’t know the exact path that evolution took in producing the species we see today. Again, fossils show many of the steps, but not all of the transitions.

Delving deeper, there are more questions about the basic mechanics involved. We know about basic planetary forces like gravity, but our best physics doesn’t quite explain gravity yet. Similarly, we understand a great deal about genetics and mutations in DNA, but some of the details are a little rough around the edges.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion…

wdog

I propose the following as to what evolutionists believe.

We believe that science has been our most powerful and only tool for investigating the workings of nature. As proof of its power in uncovering some of the truths of nature just look at all technology, medicine, ect. around you. Religion has done nothing in that respect. So when it comes to investigating the natural history of the earth, we believe that science, not religion, will give us the most reliable description because of the overwhelming empirical evidence before us.

Starboy

Hey Optics Guy,

You see things pretty good. I would agree with everything you said except the truth part. Please see the following thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001056" target="_blank">Topic: Is {Science vs. Religion} == {Science Truth vs. Religious Truth}? </a>

Starboy

l-bow

GTX,

Do you know AiG? Look what they say about the "Evolution is just a theory" argument:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp</a>

quote:
?eEvolution is just a theory.?f What people usually mean when they say this is ?eEvolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.?f Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ?etheory?f in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein?fs Theory of Relativity and Newton?fs Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-H&uuml;ckel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

KeithHarwood

If you are going to go into detail, the fact that the earth is round isn't 100% known either. There are controversies and different theories. The people who track satellites study the variations from roundness and call them the harmonics of the earth's gravitational field. Cartographers measure variations using absolute measures of length. Geologists measure them as differences of the gravitational vertical from the geometric vertical. These different measures result in different ways to describe the variations from roundness. Are we therefore to conclude that because of these differences that the earth is not round at all, but is flat?

It's the same with evolution. When you get to the detail you will find the same sort of differences between people who are using different means to investigate different details. Are we therefore to conclude that because of these differences that evolution didn't happen?

If you answer the second question differently from the first, please explain why.

tgamble

I guess they realized that the lie that evolution is only a theory wouldn't work anymore, so they had to come up with a new lie.

Starboy

Hello I-bow,

I find the whole creationist movement to be very amusing. It must eventually implode since it is easy to see that it lacks any sincerity, intellectual honesty or integrity and is purely a proselytizing tactic. This scientific charade in the long run will do nothing for the Christian cause, and it will eventually backfire on them. Since many Christians will come to see it for what it is and will experience a disconfirming event. This crazy religious strategy along with the actions of our fearless Christian President and the Christian Congress just reinforces my opinion that the Christian leadership in this country consists of a bunch of morons.

Starboy

Secular Pinoy

Very nice post! Can I swipe it and file it for futher use? And how do I handle the attribution? Do I put your nick? Thanks!