|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
It's not the Law of Evolution, and it's not the Law of Relativity. They're still theories, no matter how many people think of them as absolute truths. |
jesus christ, you're beginning to piss me off. ill post it again since you seemed to miss it the first time.
| quote: |
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory! |
|
|
|
| Desiderata |
My problem was I knew a Theory had to hold it's own weight for a certain time before it could gain some serious momentum. And I know a little bit about a lot of Theories and can explain some on a general level (lamen terms) but never thought of taking it to a philosophical level even though I knew there were crackpot Scientist out there with some wild ideas.
My down fall in this.
I can admit this. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
jesus christ, you're beginning to piss me off. ill post it again since you seemed to miss it the first time. |
It's gone philosophical, you can argue but it would be pointless:p |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
My problem was I knew a Theory had to hold it's own weight for a certain time before it could gain some serious momentum. And I know a little bit about a lot of Theories and can explain some on a general level (lamen terms) but never thought of taking it to a philosophical level even though I knew there were crackpot Scientist out there with some wild ideas.
My down fall in this.
I can admit this. |
in lamen terms, huh? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Even if all observations point to a theory the explain some phenomena, whether it be gravity, evolution, etc. that does not make it absolute truth. Newton's theory of Gravity was a scientific theory, but Einstein's theory of relativity fit better. Thus, Newton's theory of Gravity was proven to be incorrect. What's not to say that the same thing could happen to the Theory of Relativity? That's all I've been trying to say. |
Newton’s laws of gravity were proven to be incorrect for large bodies, but they are still correct for small. So his work wasn’t disproven in its entirety, indeed most of it holds up as well today as it did back in the day. The theory of relativity won’t be proven to be incorrect, because we have working technology based on its principles. We already know that the theory has its limitations (at the singularity for instance) where quantum gravity takes over the reigns, but relativity has withstood 100% of experiments designed to test it. When we know more, relativity may become a small part of some other, larger theory in the way relativity was a larger, more complete version of newton’s gravitational laws, but to me, that isn’t “disproven”. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| Dive! Dive! Dive! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Why are you fools talking bout ships here?! :wtf: :stongue: |
They started bringing philosophical bollocks into the thread, so I figured a philosophical analogy, Theseus’ Ship, was relevant. But, since you’re apparently Mr Science, I would welcome your input into the discussion. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
in lamen terms, huh? |
laymen terms, I'm typing fast cause I need to go somewhere real soon. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Apples falling from trees worked perfectly according to Newton's theories too. Literally all you're doing is recycling things other people already said ad nauseum, so just stop. |
And those rules still apply, are testable and proven. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
It's gone philosophical
It's gone philosophical
It's gone philosophical
It's gone philosophical
lol, Man I gotta get off this machine, time to go. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
They started bringing philosophical bollocks into the thread, so I figured a philosophical analogy, Theseus’ Ship, was relevant. But, since you’re apparently Mr Science, I would welcome your input into the discussion. |
Philosophical bollocks? Where the do you think science came from? Philosophy, metaphysics, etc. Just because you came up with a ty metaphor doesn't mean you have to take a jab at the subject that gave birth to your precious science.
And AGAIN I never said the Theory of Relativity was wrong. It's just a fact that theories (scientific or otherwise) are constantly being amended, and even disproven. Apparently you have the gift of omniscience since you're basically claiming that the Theory of Relativity will always hold true, no matter what. Even if a better theory comes out, you just backpedal saying that "Oh, well relativity is still a part of the better theory."
Apparently nobody in here understands Philosophy, so keep quoting your scientific facts and figures to support your argument that you'll never be able to win from a philosophical standpoint.
I'm starting a new hypothesis that everyone who keeps arguing about this, despite the fact that there is no possible way for them to predict the future and whether Relativity will hold true despite advancements in the way we understand astrophysics, is a jackass.
*waits for people to make my hypothesis a scientific theory* |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
They started bringing philosophical bollocks into the thread, so I figured a philosophical analogy, Theseus’ Ship, was relevant. But, since you’re apparently Mr Science, I would welcome your input into the discussion. |
Theseus' Ship huh? I must have misheard my professor in Philosophy 101. Theseus' Ship is a paradox that questions whether an object which has had all of its component parts changed, is fundamentally the same object. Replacing one plank does not fit this in any way. Even if you used this correctly, and likened a scientific theory to a Theseus' Paradox; if the theory had all of its component laws, methods, supporting experimentation, etc. changed, it would not be the same theory. |
|
|
|
|
