Observed variation within a species does not prove evolution from a single cell organism. That is my point. Evolution from a single cell is just a theory. Now dog breeding, I love it. Yes, when things breed, there is a combination of there cells. The offspring is different. To correlate this to prove evolution. WOW, that requires some faith. It really is not necessary to teach full evolution from a single cell when what is observed is variation and adaptation by a species. You could ignore the theoretical part and just teach the observed part and there would be no loss of understanding. But alas that is not possible in the closed minded thought of modern science. My position is just to point out the that evolution is just a theory but is thought of as fact and taught that way. To the point of ostracizing anyone who does not accept it. That is the state of science today. It is not only about evolution. It pertains to other subjects also. Just look at the global warming debate.
Sorry that it was taught that way to you. It was not taught that way to me. You were taught that theories are true and must be believed. Mr. Ham teaches that creation a few thousand years ago is true and must be believed and that no amount of evidence could ever convince him otherwise. Mr. Nye (and I) were taught that science is a moving knowledge base, that we need not believe anything, only think and reason and observe. Given the above, we can see why you always diminish theories with the 'just' qualifier, and I always scoff at religions trying to masquerade as science.
Your position seems to be that the evolution of life from a single cell to what it is today is a theory. Certain types of evolution are observable today. To say that all of evolution is a theory just because we are not able to observe what happened in the past seems to be an excessive generalization.
The point of the apple maggot fly is that it shows actual creation of a new species not mere variation within a species. The apple tree was not present in N America prior to European exploration and the Hawthorn maggot fly was not present in Eurasia/Africa. After introduction of the apple tree to N America a separate fruit fly species evolved that does not interbreed with the Hawthorn maggot fly. The difference isn't like Cocker Spaniels and Poodles, its like foxes and coyotes. That people confuse theories of the origin of life with the observed reality of evolution strikes me as symptomatic of chlidhood brainwashing. I stand by my point that real world observations of evolution and applications of evolutionary principles are commonplace and that people who do not accept the notion of evolution cripple their understanding of practical biology.
Maggots?? Aveo-are you Trying to put me off apples!! This is a true apples and oranges argument. Science is a method of exploring the natural world-a system. No one BELIEVES IN SCIENCE anymore than I" believe" in this laptop It is a useful tool-nothing more Religion is based on faith. Pretty much all religions are faith based-meaning "no proof" in the testable sense. Now we can't "make" a cell from scratch-but that doesn't mean evolution is wrong- variations of those sorts of arguments are stock and trade of the anti evolutionists You can't do this therefore it is wrong. I am an idiot for even getting in this argument-no question about that!!
By science insisting that unproven theories are fact, science in a sense then masquerades as a religion. Demanding unquestioning faith.
Science doesn't demand faith. Science asks for trust as a time saver, but if you don't trust you can dig deeper into the details. You can question, challenge, assemble evidence and eventually shift consensus, as has happened many times in human history. Religion demands faith, because it hinges on whether particular sentences are truth or not, without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. (And it certainly doesn't save time). Evolution of humans by natural selection, like other science taught in schools is taught as fact because it's simpler to do so. I think it would be good to ensure students have an understanding that the science they are taught is based on humanity's best understanding, rather than waste time by qualifying every sentence, but I also think it would good to change many other things about the educational system, especially ensuring that children are not taught romantic mythology or outdated and superseded ideas.
I think you are looking at the idealist. In practice most college type scientists don't want to hear anything else(my personal observation). They already "know" what is right. Also, look at the global warming debate as to how the scientists act, or react. Name calling is frequent and "the issue is settled" so we don't have to debate it anymore. The same is true on a much larger and more pervasive scale in regards to evolution. I don't care if you want to believe in evolution or not. The lights will still turn on and off. It just doesn't matter for most engineering. That is my whole point whether you believe it or not for engineering it doesn't matter, so why teach it as fact when it is just a theory.
That's what I mean. So, so sorry your personal experience with science teachers was filled with those unable to explain science as my teachers did. It is a bit ironic that many dismiss science as just a theory, while accepting religion with no evidence whatsoever even though it is 'just' a religion, and is explicitly not observable, testable or repeatable.
So what you are saying is that since evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable it just like a religion. You accept it on faith. Interesting view.
A scientific theory is something that is a virtually perfect understanding of how reality works. Theories are almost a certain as we can be - nearly a Law of Nature. Evolution is absolutely key to a huge range of scientific study. Everything from medical science to archaeology to biology to DNA to geology to plate tectonics. You cannot simply yank out a piece of science. All of science is of a whole - and you and I don't get to pick and choose among them. Science is not a faith-based endeavor. To say so is insulting and reveals your ignorance of how science functions.
I was wondering how long it would be before the name calling would start. It happens every time. See, you just don't want to listen to another viewpoint on a theory. That is my point exactly. I am ignorant and insulting just because I don't adhere to your way of thinking. WOW that is quite the convincing argument for your thoughts. What is next the billy clubs.
I know I said it for you. Just trying to get you to step back and question you beliefs. Because evolution requires a belief or faith also. Chances are you didn't actually come up with evolution yourself, you read it or were taught it. See that is a belief or faith that someone else has told you. Just trying to get you the "think" for yourself.
I am open to any better theory. In the meantime, evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable, and wholly consistent with the record, and it provides many useful capabilities. I do NOT believe it, but simply incorporate it into the current state of understanding and use it in an overall framework until any other theory comes along. I have no faith in it the minute evidence fits better with another theory. There may be other theories, but I have not seen them.
You are quibbling about the definition of words- Now as I said before-teachers literally don't care what you "believe"-100 pupils-why would they care about beliefs? They do require you parrot back current theory-if you want a good grade- you taking a biology course- if you want to teach a course in something else-open a school-teach away and yes-they WON'T be one bit interested in any hypothesis that isn't testable- they won't allow anyone to waste class time on that-why should they? and no they won't allow anyone to steal class time saying the equivalent of "newton was completely wrong-because of Einsteins theories" Newton was-is STILL RIGHT-(now his "stuff" was mainly laws-but the idea is the same) so they won't allow "you can't make cells therefore evolution is wrong arguments" Offer us your testable hypothesis on the origin of the earth?? Just what IS CREATION SCIENCE?? WHAT IS YOUR TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS-? SCIENCE- is a method-not a belief system-it requires testable hypotheses- so just what is the hypothesis creation science is based on? Not sure why folks can't believe "god set it in motion" 13 billion years ago- Catholic Theology allows just that-(guess they learned a lesson -Galileo) But Catholics emphasize FAITH- they don't "believe" the old testament-
Now now-that isn't quite fair He didn't call you a name-and you know he didn't. No he did not call you ignorant. Saying you were ignorant of how science works-isn't the same as saying you are ignorant All he said was that you appear to be ignorant of the definition of science because you keep insisting it requires "belief" in the same sense that religion requires "belief" Now if someone said I was a dumb SOB for getting in this argument-yes they would have named called They would be right of course!! If you want to argue Creation Science-using the word science-you have to produce a testable hypothesis or you can just redefine science-not requiring testable hypotheses-but you have to be clear that your science doesn't require a testable hypotheses we aren't the word police-but we have to know what you mean when you say science
Exactly! Many people around the world, who adhere to a variety of religions, see the existence of an orderly universe with demonstrable laws and mechanisms (including evolution) as proof of God's existence. As do I. Why not accept the obvious evidence of the physical world, and believe God designed the whole thing? I, for one, don't believe the fossil record is an attempt by Satan to trick us.
I will go back to my original post. Before the name calling (yes this is name calling "To say so is insulting and reveals your ignorance of how science functions". Original post "Actually there are two branches of science. One branch I think it is called Physical Science is based on observable properties and conditions/reactions. These by properties are document-able, repeatable and verifiable by others. These observations are the basis of all engineering. An example of this is the properties of electricity and magnetism. Well documented observations have led to inventions that we use everyday. The other branch I think it is call Theoretical Science is theory and conjecture. It is not observable, repeatable, or verifiable by others. An example of this is evolution which is a theory and cannot be observed, verifiable or repeatable. We tend to lump the two branched of science together and think the a theory is the same as fact. An interesting note. Theoretical science can be ignored as it has no bearing on engineering or invention." I still stand behind that. Evolution is an unproven theory. I have not seen anyone post anything here that supports anything different. It seems though that you all can't accept that. (Note on Apple maggot fly in next post.)
