Evolution, Science And Education

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 18 2005, 02:58 PM

I think you are right. I have just wondered why blacks don't leave the south and come up north where they are treated better.

I stopped reading when I got to this point...You live in Utah, not in the South, therefore I'll give you a little leeway...

I've lived in the south my entire life save for 8 mo at BYU. I can count on one hand the times I've witnessed pure racism against blacks. However, I can't begin to count the times I've witnessed/encountered pure racism against whites. My two eldest brothers live in Washington D.C. after growing up in the south. Do you know where they have encountered the MOST rascism against blacks? Washington D.C....

Try not to be so stereotypical...

back to your regularly scheduled programming

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 2 2005, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 2 2005, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 01:17 PM

A big part of this debate has to do with the problem of definitions.  "Proof" is being used to mean "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- which almost never exists.  In law, depending on the standard being used, something is considered proven when it is shown by evidence to be more likely than not.  The theory of evolution meets that standard.

Amillia -- Before being so sure of yourself on the evolution issue, educate yourself a little more.  Evolution does not say that we descended from gorillas and chimpanzees.

Mark:  Re: the Cambrian explosion -- Part of the reason the Cambrian-era rocks contain so many fossils is that pre-Cambrian rocks tend to be heavily metamorphic, meaning they're so old and have been buried so deep for so long that they've changed their mineral form, erasing most of the fossil record within them.

I was asking a question! Where did I say I was sure of myself. Before you act all sure of yourself about me, get your facts!

You asked a question, and then you said "It doesn't make sense," which I took (maybe mistakenly) as applying to evolution in general. The question you asked doesn't render evolution senseless, because it mischaracterizes the evolutionist position -- which is that humans evolved, not from gorillas and chimpanzees, but from a long-ago common ancestor of both those apes and humans. In other words, the chimpanzees took one fork in the road and evolved to fill one evolutionary niche, while we took another fork and evolved to fill another one.

I stil believe there has to be more than just speculation. There really isn't any proof. The indians used to call dogs little horses. Does that bring us to think that because they have commonalities, they had a fork in the road also?

[Outshined]

I live in Tennessee, and I can confirm what Faerie posted. The old south is pretty much gone.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Amillia,

Does that bring us to think that because [dogs and horses] have commonalities, they had a fork in the road also?

Well, yes. They had a common mammal ancestor. Ditto whales.

I stil believe there has to be more than just speculation. There really isn't any proof.

Agree with the first, but not the second. There is proof -- or evidence -- but you're just not convinced by it. Fair enough.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:00 PM

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. embryologist.

Let me guess, he is a creationist. Tell me WHERE he got his degree and where he works.

[Cal]

Originally posted by mark44+Feb 1 2005, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mark44 @ Feb 1 2005, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 1 2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 08:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with  Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

First, you use the term "proof". That is strawman. Scientists NEVER use the word proof. The better term would be "best explanation" or best theory.

The "best" explanation for the changes that can be seen in the human fossil record is that we, humans, are decended from ancestors that were also common to Chimps, and less directly to other primates (since we share the biggest % of our genes with Chimps). You are simply wrong that there is no evidence of "micro evolution", there is plenty evidence that life forms and branches of living things have changes drastically over time.

ONe thing there is NO evidence for is the idea that living things were zapped into existance in a single "miraculous" beginning.

The rational person doesn't seek for absolute proof, he seeks for the best explanation for the existing evidence. Find me a credible scientist (biological) that thinks the fossil record and other evidence points "best" at some sort of instantaneous creation, and I will show you 99 others that say evolution is the best explanation. Frankly, I don't think you can name even ONE PhD Biologist that thinks evolution didn't happen.

Cal:

so you admit you believe in evolution because it's "the best explanation." so, you admit you don't have proof. you know what, gravity is no longer the best explanation to explain why an apple falls to the eart, gravity is now a law of science (though of course we don't know how absolute it is, einstein showed that). also, "best explanation" is such a "subjective" term.

i still don't know how you can explain the cambrian explosion. in your own words, 99% of species appeared all of a sudden.

also, answer me this, what was there "before" the big bang? i think we need to move more into astrophysics rather than natural science in order to really put a nail in the coffin of evolution.

Before we start putting nails in anything, please don't use science to support your position if you are going to ignore it when it doesn't.

Now, before there is any point in going further, you are going to have to define what YOU think "evolution" means. There are several definitions and issues involved.

First, there is the issue of the age of the earth and the universe. I take it you conceed that the universe is extremely old--say 13 billion years. There would be no point in you asking me about the 'big bang' if you think the universe was zapped into existance 6 thousand years ago, since any scientific theory of the universe requires an ancient universe.

Second, how do you define evolution? The mechanics of the origin of life are separate from the facts of evolution.

Lets begin with:

Do you hold the "young earth" view of the typical creationist? That is, that the earth, and universe were zapped into existance 6000 years ago? Actually, not even the most conservative mormon BYU scholars cling to this anymore--Bruce R. McConkie Jr, for example, conceeds that the universe is of ancient origin.

And, do you dispute that plants and animals have changed over time?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:00 PM

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. embryologist.

Let me guess, he is a creationist. Tell me WHERE he got his degree and where he works.

Google:

Dr. Wells is a biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and hold Ph.D.s from both Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley. His recent book, Icons of Evolution, published by Regnery, has attracted international endorsement.

Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has done postdoctoral research at the UC Berkeley, and has taught biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr. Wells has published articles in both scientific and religious journals including Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, American Presbyterians, and Patristic and Byzantine Review. He is also author of the books "Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism" (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and "Icons of Evolution" (Regnery, 2000). He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dr. Wells's work in developmental biology poses a serious challenge to the neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations can create new body plans and organisms.

Sounds like a typical egghead to me...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 2 2005, 06:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 2 2005, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:03 PM

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees.  There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends?  Detours?  A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting.  I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them.  But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

True, evolution is a theory. It's a widely accepted version of what heppened, but it is still a theory, as is Intelligent Design.

I don't know that I believe in drastic evolution as in ape-to-man, but I believe that many species do evolve and adapt to a degree over time. Darwin got a lot of it right.

You are right that Darwin got a lot of it right.

You are wrong, however, that ID is a theory. It is a religious or philosphical tenent. The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution was a conclusion based on observed facts. The facts came FIRST. Darwin observed all kinds of plants and animals, studied their anatomical similarities and differences in places like South America and the Galapagos Islands. After gathering all his data together, he THEN came to the scientific conclusion we now call Organic Evolution.

Intelligent Design is a conclusion, arrived at BEFORE any serious facts arose to support it. And non have yet.

Theories, in science, are not just vacuous guesses, or religious dogmas, that start with a conclusion in search of supportive facts. A scientific theory is only a conclusion reached after considering ALL the facts in total.

The problem with ID is that it started with its own conclusion, based on the need of some religious types to find something to replace "creationism" since it has been so soundly refuted. The problem is, ID doesn't do anything for the cause. It is just another attempt to circumvent evolution.

It should also be pointed out that a BELIEF in a supreme creator is not precluded by accepting evolution as a solid theory. Science, and evoutionary theory, do not even address the existance of a supreme creator. Science requires that a subject be amendable to experimental verification or denial. Since the existance of such an entity is not verifible by experimentation science has NOTHING to say about it one way or the other.

Let's keep the concept of scientific theories and religious beliefs separate.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 2 2005, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 2 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with  Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense.

That is the oldest objection to evolution in the book. It reveals a profound misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. Really you should just take a good biology course or read up on the subject.

Just a brief explanation. Species do not have to change along with the branches of species that emerge off of them. Species can have common ancestors, as do we and the chimps and gorillas. It is not true that we are direct decendants of chimps or gorillas--we just had common ancesters. Our line changed more over time than did the Chimps and Gorillas. For example, the cockroach has remained the same for 300 million years, where many other insects have changed drastically since then. It all depends on the environmental pressures for survival that populations have encountered.

To say that we couldn't have common ancestors with the Chimps is to ignore the obvious---we share 99% of our genes with them---how is there no biological relationship with them. Common ancestry is the only logical conclusion. On top of that, the fossil record has been found that shows this evolution quite nicely.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 2 2005, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 2 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 26 2005, 07:12 PM

Because there is ample "scientific evidence" that Einstein EXISTED.  There is no scientific evidence for the existance of God, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it.

Why would the study of how the world came into being, set strictly upon scientific studies. Why not religious studies. Why guess and theorized in science as to how it all came about, and not give a little of the guess work to the creationist's ideas.

Science is supposed to be a study of concrete evidential facts. Yet coming up with a big bang theory is considered science. It is totally stupid.

Wow, Amillia, you really need to get a little back ground into the nature of science.

First of all, the big bang theory is based on some real serious evidence. Do you really want to hear it. What exactly happened that made it happen is still being evalutated, but the fact that the universe began with a big explosion of matter has very substantial factual evidence. If you want me to tell you about it I will, but only if you ask.

Second, you are confusing the methods of science with the methods of religion. The reason scientists don't rely on religion to explain the origin of the universe is because science requires observable and repeatable FACTS. Religion only requires belief and is based upon conclusions formed that don't require a factual basis in order to be accepted. Scientists don't accept creationism because there is no factual basis for it---only religious proclamations or forgone conclusions.

[Cal]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 04:04 PM

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing,"

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

That you don't agree, not to be insulting, with something that experts in a field say, makes you sound really silly. It would be like me, as a science teacher saying that I disagree with Sandbergs history of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I'm in no position to HAVE an opinion on it since I haven't read it and am not an expert in the history of the life of Abe Lincoln.

Study the subject, then have an opinion. But this is America, have all the opinions you want! Doesn't mean that those who have some background in the subject aren't going to laugh at you. ( ok, with you )

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 07:03 PM

Exhibit "A" for evolution = the cold viruds that's kdocked me dead the last three days.

[cough, hack, wheeze, groan, expire]

And it is evolving as we speak--hope you get to feeling better!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 06:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 07:03 PM

Exhibit "A" for evolution = the cold viruds that's kdocked me dead the last three days. 

[cough, hack, wheeze, groan, expire]

And it is evolving as we speak--hope you get to feeling better!

Thangks, budt I'b nodt quite better yet. Dang Santa Ana winds got by dose stubbed up agaidn.

I swear, they ought to put those little red "biohazard" stickers on little kids' foreheads. Pint-sized biological weapons, they are.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 3 2005, 06:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 3 2005, 06:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:00 PM

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. embryologist.

Let me guess, he is a creationist. Tell me WHERE he got his degree and where he works.

Google:

Dr. Wells is a biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and hold Ph.D.s from both Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley. His recent book, Icons of Evolution, published by Regnery, has attracted international endorsement.

Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has done postdoctoral research at the UC Berkeley, and has taught biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr. Wells has published articles in both scientific and religious journals including Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, American Presbyterians, and Patristic and Byzantine Review. He is also author of the books "Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism" (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and "Icons of Evolution" (Regnery, 2000). He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dr. Wells's work in developmental biology poses a serious challenge to the neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations can create new body plans and organisms.

Sounds like a typical egghead to me...

Sounds like he also has a religious axe to grind. A very scientific study has shown that among even Mormon Biological scientists, the vast majority accept evolution as the best theory to describe the facts observed. Most find that they can harmonize evolution with their religious beliefs.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 3 2005, 06:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 3 2005, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 06:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 07:03 PM

Exhibit "A" for evolution = the cold viruds that's kdocked me dead the last three days. 

[cough, hack, wheeze, groan, expire]

And it is evolving as we speak--hope you get to feeling better!

Thangks, budt I'b nodt quite better yet. Dang Santa Ana winds got by dose stubbed up agaidn.

I swear, they ought to put those little red "biohazard" stickers on little kids' foreheads. Pint-sized biological weapons, they are.

I can't stand the Santa Ana's either--its crumby that the nicest clearest days are messed up by pollen and dust---the bain of a hayfever-sufferer's existance.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:56 PM

Sounds like he also has a religious axe to grind. A very scientific study has shown that among even Mormon Biological scientists, the vast majority accept evolution as  the best theory to describe the facts observed. Most find that they can harmonize evolution with their religious beliefs.

I never heard of him until you asked about him. I don't know if he leans toward God or aliens.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:26 PM

You are wrong, however, that ID is a theory. It is a religious or philosphical tenent. .

it. And non have yet.

Actually, the scientific community seesm to be treating it as a theory, albeit a theory with which they disagree. Just because it is based on something intangible doesn't mean you don't call it a theory. And oddly, I've seen a few ID theorists who lean toward not a God figure, but an alien creator. Some of it gets pretty weird.

LINK

LINK

Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens.

ID is a theory, as is evolution, though evolution is based on evidence, and ID is based on, well, something else.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 3 2005, 07:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 3 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:26 PM

You are wrong, however, that ID is a theory. It is a religious or philosphical tenent. .

it. And non have yet.

Actually, the scientific community seesm to be treating it as a theory, albeit a theory with which they disagree. Just because it is based on something intangible doesn't mean you don't call it a theory. And oddly, I've seen a few ID theorists who lean toward not a God figure, but an alien creator. Some of it gets pretty weird.

LINK

LINK

Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens.

ID is a theory, as is evolution, though evolution is based on evidence, and ID is based on, well, something else.

Yeah, well the "something else" makes all the difference. In science a Theory MUST be based on facts and observations, or it is simply NOT a theory. It is speculation. You are confusing the terms---as do most of the lay public.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:22 PM

Yeah, well the "something else" makes all the difference. In science a Theory MUST be based on facts and observations, or it is simply NOT a theory. It is speculation. You are confusing the terms---as do most of the lay public.

I'm in good company then.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/int...ntelligent.html

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html

Oxford Dictionary: the·o·ry

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

If it makes you feel better, redefine the word all you want.

EDIT: ID is mentioned in a number of University and science sites, usually politely referred to as garbage, but also labelled as theory.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 3 2005, 07:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 3 2005, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:22 PM

Yeah, well the "something else" makes all the difference. In science a Theory MUST be based on facts and observations, or it is simply NOT a theory. It is speculation. You are confusing the terms---as do most of the lay public.

I'm in good company then.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/int...ntelligent.html

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html

Oxford Dictionary: the·o·ry

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

If it makes you feel better, redefine the word all you want.

Ok, let' go with the Oxford definition:

Oxford Dictionary: the·o·ry

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The definition itself says the theory is based on limited information or knowledge. Even if this is the common definition, instead of the scientific one, which I think it is, ALL information is limited. There is no such things as UNLIMITED information or knowledge. Therefore, creationism is not a theory as it is based on NO information of any credible scientific nature. There isn't one piece of credible evidence that points one in the direction of an instantaneous creation of the universe.

The second definition, a conjecture, makes the whole definition given here, ambiguous. Conjecture seems to imply a simple guess. That is more akin to the term, hypothesis, which is a term used in science to denote that very thing--a guess, without much support.

So, actually, you are not in good company. Most scientists can make the distinction between theory and hypothesis. Creationism, if you will, is more akin to a hypothesis, than a theory.

Even in undergrad science classes one learns that the scientific method can be, more or less, stated in a series of steps.

Research, hypothesis, experimental design, data and observations, analysis of data and observations and conclusion (theory). If you can't apply those steps before ariving at the conclusion or theory, then you haven't done science, pure and simple.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:53 PM

[

Oxford Dictionary: the·o·ry

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Definition one, Compliments of Mirriam-Webster:

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

[Outshined]

Intelligent Design is an interesting subject in its newest guise, enough to have involved the scientific world afresh. Cal has told me that we "lay public" members are confused when we refer to it as a theory. Not so.

I've taken the liberty of reading some of the ID proponents' work, and have found about half (so far) to be of a religious nature, the rest are more vague on their "superior being". All have been well-written, by scientists, people with doctorates in scientific endeavors. The earlier mention Dr. Wells being one, with a Ph.D. in molecular biology from UC; hardly a lay person. Proponents are physicists, biologists and other scientists with a different belief, not crackpot fundamentalists. A link or two:

LINK

LINK

LINK

The rebuttals I've read are pretty convincing and non-inflammatory, that is they do not insult or deride proponents of ID, they simply address the material. Several I've read so far refer to ID as a theory, as do several University web sites. I think it is safe to assume that these scientists are "doing science" when they do so. Notably, none of the rebuttals I've read quibble over the definition of a word when discussing ID, they simply show why they do not consider it feasible.

Some good rebuttal: LINK

I don't claim to know everything about ID or evolution, though I did write a paper in college on primate evolution that would have even Cal quivering with joy. I did not choose to specialize in biology; my degree is in Computer Science. I'm working on my Masters now (why not, you're paying for it! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!).

My feelings on ID: I don't really want to see it taught in schools unless it is in passing discussion of alternative beliefs on the origin of man. Evolution is good science and does not preclude one from religious belief. After all, if you believe in the Great Flood, you pretty much have to believe in some degree of evolution as well.

We can say this; ID is at least challenging scientists to defend evolution and examine every approach offered. The evidence is therefore being examined more closely, and more is bound to be learned about the origins of life on Earth.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@

Research, hypothesis, experimental design, data and observations, analysis of data and observations and conclusion (theory). If you can't apply those steps before arriving at the conclusion or theory, then you haven't done science, pure and simple.

Research: to find or obtain information from a source. A source may be considered credible when in truth it is not, and conversely, a source may not be considered credible even when in truth it is. A source considered credible may also possess information that is not true, and a source not considered credible may have information that is true. Thus it would help to have some way to be able to find the truth from wherever the truth can be found, and not merely to rely upon a source as knowing the truth in all things simply because it has been found to know the truth in some things, or conversely.

Hypothesis: a reasonable explanation of available information. One hypothesis is often discounted for another when more information is found. It is important to note that a reasonable explanation may not be true, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Experimental design: a design or pattern used to test information, usually to determine whether the source information or hypothesis can be considered credible. As with an hypothesis, this pattern or test may be discounted if new information is found or found to be more credible, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Data and observations: The type of information that is obtained through research. See the definition for research above. It is important to note that data and observations recorded in a book are not necessarily true merely because that data and observations have been recorded in a book, even if that book is very old. Thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Analysis of data: The process of reviewing and organizing or classifying information obtained through research or a personal witness, with the analysis usually resulting in a hypothesis. It is important to note that an analysis may not be true (or honest), so the analysis may be discarded once the information is analyzed again or new information is obtained which leads to a more reasonable explanation (or hypothesis). Thus is would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Conclusion (theory): a reasonable explanation of information which has been tested for credibility. As with the others steps involved in this scientific method concerning information, a conclusion (or theory) may be discounted once the information has been reconsidered or new information has been found, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Now, in conclusion of my summary of these steps involving the scientific methods concerning information, I testify that our greatest source of information and truth is God, and to know the truth from God we must research information from God by reading the scriptures and everything else people claim has come through revelations from God (an analysis of data using data and observations), study that information and reflect upon it in our minds (experimental design), form a reasonable explanation (hypothesis) about it, and ask God if we correctly understand and interpret the information He has given us, thus providing a conclusion (theory) to our search for the truth. If we do everything but ask God if we correctly understand Him, or fail to wait for a response from Him to assure us (give us faith) that we correctly understand Him, we are merely relying upon what we think is right and thus it would still help to be able to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Ray+Feb 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Feb 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@

Research, hypothesis, experimental design, data and observations, analysis of data and observations and conclusion (theory). If you can't apply those steps before arriving at the conclusion or theory, then you haven't done science, pure and simple.

Research: to find or obtain information from a source. A source may be considered credible when in truth it is not, and conversely, a source may not be considered credible even when in truth it is. A source considered credible may also possess information that is not true, and a source not considered credible may have information that is true. Thus it would help to have some way to be able to find the truth from wherever the truth can be found, and not merely to rely upon a source as knowing the truth in all things simply because it has been found to know the truth in some things, or conversely.

Hypothesis: a reasonable explanation of available information. One hypothesis is often discounted for another when more information is found. It is important to note that a reasonable explanation may not be true, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Experimental design: a design or pattern used to test information, usually to determine whether the source information or hypothesis can be considered credible. As with an hypothesis, this pattern or test may be discounted if new information is found or found to be more credible, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Data and observations: The type of information that is obtained through research. See the definition for research above. It is important to note that data and observations recorded in a book are not necessarily true merely because that data and observations have been recorded in a book, even if that book is very old. Thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Analysis of data: The process of reviewing and organizing or classifying information obtained through research or a personal witness, with the analysis usually resulting in a hypothesis. It is important to note that an analysis may not be true (or honest), so the analysis may be discarded once the information is analyzed again or new information is obtained which leads to a more reasonable explanation (or hypothesis). Thus is would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Conclusion (theory): a reasonable explanation of information which has been tested for credibility. As with the others steps involved in this scientific method concerning information, a conclusion (or theory) may be discounted once the information has been reconsidered or new information has been found, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Now, in conclusion of my summary of these steps involving the scientific methods concerning information, I testify that our greatest source of information and truth is God, and to know the truth from God we must research information from God by reading the scriptures and everything else people claim has come through revelations from God (an analysis of data using data and observations), study that information and reflect upon it in our minds (experimental design), form a reasonable explanation (hypothesis) about it, and ask God if we correctly understand and interpret the information He has given us, thus providing a conclusion (theory) to our search for the truth. If we do everything but ask God if we correctly understand Him, or fail to wait for a response from Him to assure us (give us faith) that we correctly understand Him, we are merely relying upon what we think is right and thus it would still help to be able to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Thanks Ray!

[mark44]

i think LDS doctrine holds that not only is the universe old, but that every element in it had no beginning anyway, but that's it's eternal, and that we are eternal too. in other words, i have always existed, i myself had no beginning. sure i came to earth and had a mortal beginning. LDS who believe big bang may see it as a process of organization (not creation), yet i have heard of evolutionists who believe a big bang beginning scenario to the start of the universe but who refuse to consider the concept of time, matter and energy/light existing "before" the big bang. that's odd considering that that puts them in the same boat as traditional creationists like catholic creationists who teach creation ex nihilo ie time, matter and energy out of nothing but caused by god, whereas the evolutionists argue the same thing ie time, matter and energy out of nothing but with no cause, just some random chance, but that's impossible, that something came out of nothing....it's not even scientific, so why do these evolutionists hold to a beginning theory for the universe which is not supported by the current laws of physics. may be they soend too much time wrapped up in natural science and biology to even consider the implications of the standard laws of physics?

anyway, i we evolved from monkey type creatures and they from the sea, what does god look like - for those who believe in human evolution but still believe LDS doctrine or any religion- ?

coz who's to say we've stopped evolving, maybe in the next 3 million years we will look as follows:

small thin slender bodies because we will have so much technology we don't need even the little muscle power we use today

hairless as we continue evolving away from our primate beginnings

big heads to house super intelligent and large brains

and big big oval eyes

that might explain all the UFO encounters - we are being visited by the angels who are now perfectly evolved and heavenly father looks just the same - ie no long hair and beard, but a close encounter type humanoid.