Theory of evolution becomes slightly more credible

And to quote Stephen J. Gould about the difference between facts and theories. I kinda thought they taught this shit in grade 9


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

I think the science, evolution and the facts should be taught in schools, and if people have a hard time reconciling that with their religion, they should seek help from their clergy.

But speaking strictly from a spiritual/religious perspective, it's helped me to come to terms that the church doesn't have any definitive answers. Again, from a religious perspective-- I think it's normal to question God's existence, but if all the answers and "evidence" were provided, faith would not be necessary.

 

Well, here's where some of the confusion lies - the scientific use of the word theory is not the same as the vernacular use of it. When people say "It's just a theory", what they're really referring to is a hypothesis. Scientific theories are a comprehensive attempt to explain evidence and predict future occurrences. Hypotheses are generally contained within theories and are a way to test the correctness of the theory. You can have a theory that is validly and logically constructed but is totally wrong (Lysenkoism, for instance, the history of which I think would give a lot of people who want to impose creationism some pause).

In the same manner, people think that a theory can somehow be promoted to being a law, but this is wrong too. Scientific laws are attempts to describe specific mathematical relationships, and as such there's never going to be a Law of Evolution. Compare the Theory of Gravity (as I mentioned above, not that well understood) and the Law of Gravitational Attraction (rather precisely known).

 

Sounds like sj has a resident scientist. Good post, RC. What exactly is "Lsenkiosm"? (Yes, I know I can google it but.......) ;0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

 

Right. In essence it was a state-sponsored "science" that among other things held that acquired characteristics could be passed on. But they also violently repressed evolution because they didn't like the implications of it for Soviet society.

 

Except there is no definitive proof that we came from monkeys, which is why it is no more or less silly to teach students that nonsense than it is that we all came from one couple wearing fig leaves.....

 

Great. Let us know when you're ready to pull your head out of the sand. The rest of us will actually try to learn something about science.

 

I believe what Zagoshe just committed was the logical fallacy of false equivalence. Could be wrong, though.

 

I hate to break it to you, but monkeys are just among the most recent splits. We also share a common ancestor with cats, dogs, snails, the dogwood tree and the common cold.

 

Shhhh. All that science makes Plop's head hurt.