View Full Version : Georgia's giant leap backwards
Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class.
New middle and high school science standards proposed by state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time," a revision critics say will further weaken learning in a critical subject.
Outraged teachers already have told the state it is undercutting the science education of young Georgians.
"Just like any major issue people need to deal with, you need to know the facts," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University. A member of the committee that worked on the biology standards, Bechler said he was stunned to learn that evolution was not in the final proposal.
of all the stupid (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html?sub=yes)
this is asinine. whether it happened then, it's certainly happened/ing since and students need to know.
Why would you let the facts interfere with educating your children, your future??????? :disgust:
I believe evolution should be taught in school, as long as creation gets a mention as well.
I do not beleive in creationism whatsoever...it's just too bad that evolution is no more proven than creation.
They are both theories.
Ms Ann Thrope
1/30/04, 11:10am
I believe evolution should be taught in school, as long as creation gets a mention as well.
You mean ALL the creation myths, then, right? Not just Christian?
freako104
1/30/04, 11:14am
I think all the theories should be taught. Natalie tho creationism is popular in Christianity it is also taught in other religions as well. I thought this kind of crap ended in the 20's or 30s? that they would still teach it but not as much as evolution.
Ms Ann Thrope
1/30/04, 11:18am
Then teach all of the creation myths (Hindu, Native American, Christian, et al) in a History of Religion class, don't include them in a science curriculum. :disgust2:
There isn't time to teach every single creation theorie. Unless we have schools full of theology majors, there just isn't time.
freako104
1/30/04, 11:21am
9 month years and 45 minutes per class means you can touch on it doesnt it
Ms Ann Thrope
1/30/04, 11:21am
Then pick a dozen or so at random and do a cursory survey. To include any in a science class is just ridiculous!
freako104
1/30/04, 11:24am
science is about theories and I think people should know all sides before they pick one
drkavnger99
1/30/04, 11:30am
Then teach all of the creation myths (Hindu, Native American, Christian, et al) in a History of Religion class, don't include them in a science curriculum. :disgust2:
Very much agreed! But what happened to the seperation of Church and State is my question! History of Religion class isn't that what church is for to teach you that and if you don't like than go to a private school! I mean come on evolution is a scientific theory (ie thats why you put it in a science class) religion is a religous belief (ie thats why you goto church). I think this is a way to force upon the impressional to be more close minded rather than open to all possiblities! :disgust:
Gotnolegs
1/30/04, 11:35am
science is about theories and I think people should know all sides before they pick one
I disagree, science is about fact.
If it is simply a matter of someone deciding what they believe then we are talking philosophy. When we apply that to creation then we are talking theology which imho fall under the category of Religious Studies not science.
Like it or not evolution happens - fact. Why that would mean God doesn't exist is completely beyond me, I was always under the impression that God (assuming of course that God exists) was omnipotent and could therefore have created evolution...
Well, if you go to a private school, most won't teach you about any religon except their own, except the occasional jab at other religons.
To get a broad view of religon you really have to attend some college level classes where you can learn about religon in history. Now, the question is, is it necessary to teach the kids this before they get to college?
I do not beleive in creationism whatsoever...it's just too bad that evolution is no more proven than creation.
They are both theories.
No. Evolution is a fact. It has been proven genetically years ago. Creationist's childish refusal to accept that in no way abrogates the fact any more than the flat-earthers refusal to accept the round earth makes it theoretically flat. Creation is a myth, not a theory.
Edit--Teach it in church if you must, it has no place in the public school system.
No. Evolution is a fact. It has been proven genetically years ago. Creationist's childish refusal to accept that in no way abrogates the fact any more than the flat-earthers refusal to accept the round earth makes it theoretically flat. Creation is a myth, not a theory.
Edit--Teach it in church if you must, it has no place in the public school system.
You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans.
As for teaching it in school - why not? Devote a week to "history of the world" in science class. Teachers should be frank and present the information in a way that allows the student to form his own opinions and do his own research. The teacher should note the two "main" theories of the beginning of the world - creation & evolution. In a subject that is so widely debated as this, the teacher should not teach either to be correct or right, but to supply a few statements on either side. Spend one day's class time on evolution, big bang, whatever. Spend the next day on creation - not reading the bible but teach that various religions believe that the world was created by a God/gods/godess(es). Overview a few of the main ones. That still leaves three more days of class for open discussion and whatnot. Then on the last day of the week - the students should be told to choose a theory they think is most plausible and write a report on why it is.
The point is - keep it simple and let the student decide what to believe for themselves.
unclehobart
1/30/04, 12:00pm
*too ashamed for my state to even enter into this one*
...maybe i'm oversimplifying the situation...but what i can't help but think is that if you want your child to know something that the school is not teaching them....teach them yourself...hell, they're your kids :)
drkavnger99
1/30/04, 12:06pm
...maybe i'm oversimplifying the situation...but what i can't help but think is that if you want your child to know something that the school is not teaching them....teach them yourself...hell, they're your kids :)
You know that is so simple it might actually be RIGHT! Thanks Tonks
You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans.
I guess you're probably unaware that the phrase "descended from apes" came from the creationists. No one who understands evolution thinks we are.As for teaching it in school - why not?
Separation of church and state? The Constitution? You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to teach a religious myth as a viable scientific theory in a public school.
I guess I've not been taught "proper evolution" then. :shrug:
As for separation of church and state - that's a whole other issue for a whole other thread. Because to get into it you'd have to get into removing ALL of church from ALL of state - no more "in God we trust" on the money, no more ten commandments in government buildings, so forth and so on. Not to mention this entire country was founded as a Christian country for people to worship as they wish - or not worship if they wish. Point is - it'll be a day in frozen hell before America truely separates church and state.
drkavnger99
1/30/04, 12:37pm
Seperation of church and state is the question. I agree to truely seperate church and state you would have to goto extremes but since when has a dollar bill taught/influence someone about a religion. I'm sorry I just don't see too many ppl being influenced by that. Now as for the teaching it in schools thats another thing you are influencing a person directly and without regards to what they have been brought up to believe! And do you really think one day in school is enough to go over the thousands of religions that exist today including all thier subdivisions! I think not! Be realistic!
I guess I've not been taught "proper evolution" then. :shrug:
Typically, when you are taught things that the people teaching don't really want you to accept, they don't give you all the facts.
Do you really wish to learn it?
Been there done that, three times over. At least they're mentioning the topic instead of excluding it altogether. :rolleyes:
But that's just the point, Mirlyn. They want to remove all mention of "evolution." It is an old argument by now, sure enough, and you either accept it or don't I suppose. I just get tired of listening to the creationist dogma that they ascribe to evolutionists theat have nothing to do with the theory.
BeardofPants
1/30/04, 03:10pm
Yes, I've been there countless times. I have a degree in anthropology specialising in archaeology and biological anthropology (evolution & primatology.) It sickens me that there is a lot of misinformation out there being fed to people. The things creationists have come up with - and are now being licensed to propagate in the State of Georgia. Off the top of my head there are:
Carbon dating live specimens - which you can't: the way carbon dating works is measuring the rate of decay AFTER death
Carbon dating paint - You can only carbon date certain types of paint.
Evolution is only a theory - Please get yourself a dictionary and familiarise yourself with what exactly THEORY with regard to science means.
The second rule of thermodynamics - how then does something like H2O work? Hmmm??
We come from monkeys - we don't. We share a common ancestor with the ape family.
Lucy is really a chimp - Oh?? Then why was she bipedal? Has a larger brain capacity?
Carbon dating shows that these fossils are not millions of years old - Carbon dating only goes back 60,000 years Before Present, at most. If you want to date further back, you MUST use another method.
We have found human remains with dinosaurs - Hunh, study up on the Laws of Superposition, will ya?
The earth isn't that old - well, why are these rocks being recorded at 4.55 billion years old? And how do you explain light from stars millions of light years reaching us just now?
Can anyone else think of some common creationist fallacies? :rolleyes:
AlphaTroll
1/30/04, 03:26pm
No. Evolution is a fact. It has been proven genetically years ago. Creationist's childish refusal to accept that in no way abrogates the fact any more than the flat-earthers refusal to accept the round earth makes it theoretically flat. Creation is a myth, not a theory.
Edit--Teach it in church if you must, it has no place in the public school system.
Gosh, so many opportunities to repeat myself today (and because I'm a lazy sod I'm copying & pasting from Nationsates:
Marineris Colonies wrote:
*ahem*
"God invented, created, and is controlling the process of evolution."
So much for your argument. In fact, the existance of a logical process of evolution is pretty good evidence of a logical Creator
And I replied:
But then we go back to the start again - prove that God did in fact create it. There is substantial proof that says that yes, the physical world we occupy has changed throughout the centuries due to various factors, some of which I have already mentioned (they are testable through repeatable observation). How everything came to be is rather speculative as there was no-one around to observe it, so we theorise and speculate in order to order it in our own minds.
Thus far no-one has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian God (which I assume is the one you are referring to as the maker of it all?) indeed did create it all. Assuming that the earth was created by a higher being, which as you point out could be a logical argument, then you'd have to prove that the Christian God did in fact do it & not for instance Allah, Buddha, Brahma or any other supreme diety.
Both evolusionism & creationism are inferences based on circumstancial evidence (often pitched against each other to disprove each other) and I'm not saying that evolution is scientific fact (hell, it could even be viewed as an ongoing research programme) while creationism is mere religious mysticism. But evolution is easier to prove as it can be measured and in some cases rather accurately predicted. (Which is why, you will note I did not say that evolution DOES disprove the existence of God, merely that it gives a good argument, since no-one could prove that there has been divine intervention from a singular diety).
And I'm not trying to disprove that God exists (in fact, I believe they all do) I'm merely pointing out that using a religious argument in something like abortion is futile as not everyone believes there is such a thing. Which is why I listed all the things you'd have to prove IMO to make a religious argument valid.
You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans. .
we're not descended from apes, but if you consider evolution as a tree with Today being on the tip or the tallest branch, the idea might be clearer. As you go backwards in time, the branch that you're on joins another larger branch etcetc until it meets with the trunk itself. Going forward in time from the tree to today, you can see where organisms were the same...at some point one part changed (Branched off). Both parts kept going, some to branch off again and again. Every time that there's a new branch..there's usually a progression towards a better organism.
At some point, apes, monkeys and humans were part of the same branch...we split off, as did the apes and the monkeys. At some point, we all had a common ancestor, but the more time went, the more the differences between our branch, that of the apes and that of monkeys made us different.
Consider this though... we share about 99% of the same genes as do chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orang-otangs. We share opposeable thumbs, we share blood types (The + or - in your blood type refers to the RH, or Rhesus factor - Rh factor, protein substance present in the red blood cells of most people, capable of inducing intense antigenic reactions. The Rh, or rhesus, factor was discovered in 1940 by K. Landsteiner and A. S. Wiener, when they observed that an injection of blood from a rhesus monkey into rabbits caused an antigenic reaction in the serum component of rabbit blood (see immunity (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0825027.html)). When blood from humans was tested with the rabbit serum, the red blood cells of 85% of the humans tested agglutinated (clumped together). The red blood cells of the 85% (later found to be 85% of the white population and a larger percentage of blacks and Asians) contained the same factor present in rhesus monkey blood; such blood was typed Rh positive.
-and we share many more things.
As for teaching it in school - why not? Devote a week to "history of the world" in science class. Teachers should be frank and present the information in a way that allows the student to form his own opinions and do his own research. The teacher should note the two "main" theories of the beginning of the world - creation & evolution. In a subject that is so widely debated as this, the teacher should not teach either to be correct or right, but to supply a few statements on either side. Spend one day's class time on evolution, big bang, whatever. Spend the next day on creation - not reading the bible but teach that various religions believe that the world was created by a God/gods/godess(es). Overview a few of the main ones. That still leaves three more days of class for open discussion and whatnot. Then on the last day of the week - the students should be told to choose a theory they think is most plausible and write a report on why it is.
The point is - keep it simple and let the student decide what to believe for themselves.
The problem is that one is a science and the other theology. You can't use physics, math, chemistry or any of the other sciences to teach creationism. You either believe that the universe was made in 6 days or that it happened over a period of several billion years. or both for that matter. :/
Well, when the facts don't support you, make shit up. :D
Edit--That one was for BoP
How about the "missing link?" :lol:
A famous remark by a bishop's wife during that period says it all: 'Descended from the apes My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.'
Gosh, so many opportunities to repeat myself today (and because I'm a lazy sod I'm copying & pasting from Nationsates:
Marineris Colonies wrote:
*ahem*
"God invented, created, and is controlling the process of evolution."
So much for your argument. In fact, the existance of a logical process of evolution is pretty good evidence of a logical Creator
Since you cannot prove there is a God, would this not render the rest of your argument meaningless for the purposes of this discussion?
freako104
1/30/04, 04:03pm
I disagree, science is about fact.
If it is simply a matter of someone deciding what they believe then we are talking philosophy. When we apply that to creation then we are talking theology which imho fall under the category of Religious Studies not science.
Like it or not evolution happens - fact. Why that would mean God doesn't exist is completely beyond me, I was always under the impression that God (assuming of course that God exists) was omnipotent and could therefore have created evolution...
science uses fact but you need a theory and then you need the facts to prove your theory.
dark the separation isnt in the Constitution word for word so its technically not in there. Id like to think there is one but in a strict interpertation it aint there. but there is Freedom of Religion and also No established religion in the first amendment
AlphaTroll
1/30/04, 04:19pm
Since you cannot prove there is a God, would this not render the rest of your argument meaningless for the purposes of this discussion?
I didn't say you cannot prove there is a God, I said that no-one has been able to prove that the Christian God (and not another diety) is the sole creator of all we see around us, which have evolved over time.
I also said that evolution is something that provides an argument against creationism, not that it completely disproves it.
But IMO both concepts deserve to be studied as viable options in schools, not as opposing arguments, but rather as individual subject matters.
And in the case of creationism, I believe ALL possibilities should be included - it isn't necessary to single one out & study the entire history of it, rather include only those factors of all religions which claim to have anything to do with the creation of earth & study it's merits.
Professur
1/30/04, 04:29pm
You can be a monkey's uncle, I prefer to believe my ancestors always were humans.
Actually, evolution claims we started off as a 'primordial ooze'.
:eek5: Evolution?
I knew there was something I forgot to do...:mope:
drkavnger99
1/30/04, 04:32pm
dark the separation isnt in the Constitution word for word so its technically not in there. Id like to think there is one but in a strict interpertation it aint there. but there is Freedom of Religion and also No established religion in the first amendment
Thanks for the correction :lloyd:
:eek5: Evolution?
I knew there was something I forgot to do...:mope:
Nah you were just held back! :)
freako104
1/30/04, 04:45pm
Thanks for the correction :lloyd:
Nah you were just held back! :)
:lol: i wish i could say your welcome but I am a bit disgusted that there isnt one word for word. but I think it was Chic who said it is implied which I agree with although youll find the people who support the teacher and the school will say there isnt one.
drkavnger99
1/30/04, 05:08pm
:lol: i wish i could say your welcome but I am a bit disgusted that there isnt one word for word. but I think it was Chic who said it is implied which I agree with although youll find the people who support the teacher and the school will say there isnt one.
Agreed but if a prez/congress/supreme court did that he/they would be considered a athiest (sp?) Thats the problem with todays times its either my way or the hiway on alot of these relgious subjects!
freako104
1/30/04, 05:17pm
sadly yes being myopic is the way of things in this world. agree with me or your wrong. they maybe labeled an atheist or people may also brand them a heretic(tho we have come a long way since the Inquisition and Witch trials, I still hear heretic and other accusations of the like.
...maybe i'm oversimplifying the situation...but what i can't help but think is that if you want your child to know something that the school is not teaching them....teach them yourself...hell, they're your kids :)
*nods * Stroke of genius there :)
And no, I'm not talking about giving Einstein a handjob...
But that's just the point, Mirlyn. They want to remove all mention of "evolution." It is an old argument by now, sure enough, and you either accept it or don't I suppose. I just get tired of listening to the creationist dogma that they ascribe to evolutionists theat have nothing to do with the theory.
Perhaps I misread the article. To me, it sounded like they were not banning evolution from being taught, they were simply calling it something else.
Several years ago (as many probably remember) the BoE here in KS decided against requiring schools to teach evolution and dropped the topic entirely from its standardized tests. Since most of our districts are focused on community-control, it meant it was really up to the local district as to whether it should be taught or not (not required by State and not tested on...which makes a huge impact in small schools who don't have the funding/manpower to teach outside the required curriculum). You can imagine how many districts viewed it here in the bible belt. The media saw this and immediately began screaming "Kansas outlaws evolution" when in fact we did not. It was overturned a few years later.
I wish we could teach everything and leave it up to the young minds to be interpreded based on how they were brought up, not the teacher or the BoE. Freedom of thought sort of thing. However, as was said before in this thread....that idea opens a whole new can of worms.
No. Evolution is a fact.
Since when?
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
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.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)
freako104
1/30/04, 07:14pm
gonz there has been some evidence of evolution hence those who ascribe to that theory consider it a fact
Since when?
Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) May 1981 Sorry Gonz, DNA similarities are proof of evolution. The fossil record is clear. Since the human Genome project got going in the early nineties, more proof appears daily. You can choose not to accept it, but the proof is there regardless of what anyone says. You can quote creationists or fence sitters until doomsday, this will not alter the fact that we are an evolved species. No supernatural interference required.
The problem you have on the net is that the science community generally understands evolution to be a fact, and couldn't care less whether or not you believe it. The facts speak for themselves. Creationists, on the other hand, have no credible evidence so all they can do is cast doubt and bandy about half truths and outright lies that sound scientifically plausible. If you want to accept that, it's not my business. Evolutoin will remain a fact, and I will continue to know it.
Now, go ahead and prove to me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :P
BTW, did you completely miss the point of that article?
how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Since 1981 we have come to a better understanding of the mechanisms.
freako104
1/30/04, 09:21pm
I didnt know it was considered fact. I was taught that it was only a theory tho most scientists go by it. Chic what is the source for that article and is it reliable?
"Since when" was a genuine question. I believe, fully, in the theory of evolution. It makes sense & it makes pieces of the puzzle fit.
It may be accepted as fact but it isn't proven. There are enough brilliant minds out there to destroy the theory. It's a maddening circle.
Prove to me the earth is olderer than a day.
freako104
1/30/04, 09:50pm
considering the fossils, erosion, ocean beds and caves isnt that proof enough? if not think of all the life forms that are years old at all. let alone a day.
"Since when" was a genuine question. I believe, fully, in the theory of evolution. It makes sense & it makes pieces of the puzzle fit.
It may be accepted as fact but it isn't proven. There are enough brilliant minds out there to destroy the theory. It's a maddening circle.
Prove to me the earth is olderer than a day.
Once again, reread the article that you posted. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution involves the method. Since we don't live millions of years, we can't watch it happen.
Prove to you the earth is olderer than a day? Shucks, I guess you got me. Geezus created the whole thing yesterday just for your amusement. Only you exist.
Do you understand how radioactive dating works? Do you understand how archeologists construct a timeline?
considering the fossils, erosion, ocean beds and caves isnt that proof enough? if not think of all the life forms that are years old at all. let alone a day.
Yes it is.:)
I did read it & this is what I am trying to point out
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty";
I did read it & this is what I am trying to point out
Of course. This is where the creationists get the fuel for their fire. Evolution is a fact.
Although he did leave out the word "necessarily." Since we don't live millions of years and therefore can't watch it happen, we can in no way state with "absolute certainty." This does not stop it from being a fact.
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Perverse is a good word for it. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand what a "fact" is.
Something which is backed up by incontrovertible evidence
Something which is backed up by incontrovertible evidence
Exactly! The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible.
Yes it is....no it's not....yes it is....no it's not...
We can do this all night. I support evolution but I do not think it has become fact. There are still scholars who dispute it & they are not all religious fanatics.
freako104
1/30/04, 11:31pm
there are scholars who debate everything and dont make bold statements to sya one is true. something I learned in all my science and psych courses as well as philosophy was that theories cannot be proven only disproven. they dont try to prove they try to defend it by disproving the other. I say it is evolution how we got here. I was taught that in my school and by my parents.
"The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavour to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."
This is because knowledge and discovery are not static. You start with observations (fact), and you develop theories to explain them. These theories are constantly and rigorously tested and modified based on new observations in order to best explain whatever phenomenon they are defining. Evolution is a scientific theory based on repeated observations and reproducible experimentation.
Creationism is a religious mythology base on a single sacred text written 2000 years ago. It is static and unchanging because it is a story, not a theory. But mythology does not have to be factual. It's purpose is to create a foundation for culturally specific morals. In the past, it served to answer the unanswerable questions and quell our fears of the unknown; "where do we come from?", "where do we go when we die?" . We have debates like this because Christianity is base on a dogma that was pretty much written in stone millennia ago. We have come a long way since then, and have found the answers to our unanswerable questions. This does not invalidate the Christian belief system. It just points out the pitfalls of static written dogma. In cultures where spirituality is pased down orally, you tend to find that the religion evolves and is added to as time passes, keeping its lessons current with the times. After all, the bible is just a limited human interpretation of God's true will, is it not? We have grown and changed, why can't it?
Religion is faith. Science is fact. One is not more valid than the other; they are completely different entities.
freako104
1/31/04, 12:16am
the story of creationism is the theory.
science is based on observation and getting the knowledge you can from the observation.
1.Theory
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Observe
5.Record
6.Analyse
that is the scientific method. I think it works better than blind faith since I think you actually try to prove or as i said disprove other theories.
the story of creationism is the theory.
Based on what observations other than "we are here"?
freako104
1/31/04, 12:20am
the theory is that we are here and we are special that God made us. a theory is no more than an idea or belief
the theory is that we are here and we are special that God made us. a theory is no more than an idea or belief
"The scientific method has four steps:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature."
"Definitions:
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."
If you are talking science, which I assume you are, your definition of theory doesn't meet the criteria. Apples and oranges.
The belief in creation is based on religious faith.
The theory of evolution is based on reproducible fact.
I will repeat, I am not saying one is better or more valid; I am saying they are completely different creatures.
freako104
1/31/04, 12:35am
i agreed that neither one was more valid. but both are ideas. both are beliefs. one has more to back it up I feel(evolution) the other as I said was blind faith
i agreed that neither one was more valid. but both are ideas. both are beliefs. one has more to back it up I feel(evolution) the other as I said was blind faith
Hang on, I think we are not only agreeing, but saying similar things differently. 'k, I'm done arguing, wanna go get a beer? :D
Based on what observations other than "we are here"?
ask the Jews at the foot of the talking mountain :D
freako104
1/31/04, 01:50am
is that a story from the Bible?
the story of creationism is the theory.
science is based on observation and getting the knowledge you can from the observation.
1.Theory
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Observe
5.Record
6.Analyse
that is the scientific method. I think it works better than blind faith since I think you actually try to prove or as i said disprove other theories.
Sorry, freak but it goes this way.
1. Initial observation
2. Hypotheses which might explain the initial observation.
3. Further observation (including experimentation)
4. Anlayse data
5. Theory (self-consistent explanation of the data which makes further predictions to be proved or disproved by further observation)
6. Report and wait for others in your field to poke holes in your theory.
A theory is not a belief, it is a self-consistent, plausible explanation of observed data.
As I keep saying, though, evolution is a fact, the theory invoes how it actually works.
Someone else has already heard this, but try it this way: There are multiple theories on gravitation. Is gravity a fact or a theory?
A theory holds water until one time it can be disproven.
A theory holds water until one time it can be disproven.
True. However a theory must come from observable data and make testable predictions.
A lot of scientists make a career out of poking holes in other peoples theories.
This is the problem I have with string "theory." It's really interesting, but it makes no testable predictions. It doesn't meet all the requirements. (It also requires 10 or more dimensions, I only see four)
As intereting as String Theory is, let's (the peons) figure out evolution before we move onto harder subjests.
This is a very good explanation of the definitions.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
This is a very good explanation of the definitions.
Good explanation but they left out the part about testable predictions. And evolution is a fact by their definition (same one I use). It has been repeatedly confirmed and is accepted byand large as true. :shrug:
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 11:16am
science uses fact but you need a theory and then you need the facts to prove your theory.
This I think would make an interesting topic all of its own, but as this is OTcentral I figure it's as good here as anywhere :)
Science is about discovering and proving facts. Theories are an integral part of any science simply because a theory is necessary to develop a hypothesis about a phenomenon. The theory is either proved to be fact or disproved. This is science imho.
If the point of something is unprovable theories then we are talking about philosophy.
The problem now of course is that we have the ability to observe phenomena we have no way of proving and so we develop theories to explain them (take string theory as an example) this doesn't mean the science is only about the theory, just that we have as yet been unable to prove or disprove it. That act is what makes it a science, not the theory itself.
Hmmm probably should read the whole thread before posting in it... :lol2:
If the point of something is unprovable theories then we are talking about philosophy.
See, now I would disagree that anything unproveable could be a theory. If it's unproveable, it is therefore untestable and fails to meet one of the criteria for a theory.
ah, hell, chcr & I agree.
Once it's disproven, it's garbage.
ah, hell, chcr & I agree.
Once it's disproven, it's garbage.
Was that a wobble in the space-time continuum? :D
ah, hell, chcr & I agree.
Once it's disproven, it's garbage.
And me makes three :)
Gotnolegs, I think you may be confusing the lay use of the word "theory" with it's definition as it applies to science. In layman’s terms:
1- An apple falls off a tree.
2 - Someone sees apple fall of tree and comes up with the hypothesis that there is a force making the apple fall to the ground, not float up to the sky. He calls this force gravity.
3 - Over the next century, hundreds of people see apples fall off trees, do experiments do confirm that indeed, apples cannot float up to the sky, and that invisible Velcro is not responsible for bringing the apple to ground.
4 - The hypothesis of gravity becomes the theory of gravity and after more time and experimentation, a law.
5 - Another few centuries pass, and someone discovers that invisible garden gnomes grab apples as they fall off trees, and sit on them.
6 - The law of gravity is discarded, and the hypothesis of Invisible Garden Gnomes is born.
This is how science grows and evolves. Nothing is irrefutable. We don't call a theory a fact without absolutely incontrovertible evidence. The sky is blue. This is an observation, a fact. The sky is blue because of the way light scatters off of water molecules, this is a theory. Facts are observations; theories explain the "why".
The word theory in general usage is more akin to "hypothesis" in scientific terms.
freako104
1/31/04, 01:55pm
wow 4 of us now agree. this is getting scary
I haven't read any of it, but I'll disagree just for the hell of it..:shrug:
freako104
1/31/04, 03:13pm
:lol2: someone was bound to
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 04:09pm
You misunderstand me.
I am not saying that theories are not important to science, that most of what we know can be described using scientific theory. I am simply saying this is not the point of science.
The point of science in it's truest form is fact. Incontrovertable evidence.
A theory takes us part of the way but it is the fact we are searching for. Einstein knew this when he published his theory of relativity, it took the world by storm. It turned physics as we knew it on it's head. It came closer than we had ever come before to explaining the why of everything. However it was disprovable and that is why he spent the rest of his life searching for the one true law that explained the facts.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that the "theory" is not the purpose of science. The "fact" is.
freako104
1/31/04, 07:25pm
the purpose of science is to gain knowledge isnt it?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.