Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is posted in the interest of obtaining feedback concerning the apparent PHILOSOPHICAL question inferred by orthodox Darwinian evolution theory. Essentially, the underlying premise being that things in 'nature' are simply 'natural' and thereby occur at 'random' or by 'chance' circumstances.
So, what do these folks (proponents of orthodox Darwinian Evolution) mean when they use terms such as 'nature, randomness or chance?'
Can science answer the question of whether or not ANYTHING can or ever has happened totally 'unguided' at 'random' with no outside 'force' or 'power' to guide, create and/or sustain it?
Should orthodox Darwinian Evolution Theory be taught in public school if it is indeed classified as a PHILOSOPHY? Is it proper to teach or infer a philosophical worldview in SCIENCE class in our public schools?
Things ARE being guided, because some species are more likely to thrive, others to merely survive, and some to perish in a given environment. The environment determines which traits dominate the genetic makeup of the species, as well as which species prosper and which species go extinct.
Evolution isn't a philosophy, isn't politically motivated, and isn't something where if you can't explain one single thing it disproves the entire theory. Mutation has been objectively observed, natural selection has been objectively observed, and evolution occurs all the time. In fact, it is occurring as we speak.
Teaching students that we don't know this or that it's in any way still in question would be a lie, and the opposite of what education IS.
The sad thing is that this is what the religious right in the US wants... for knowledge to go away so they can feel better about what they want to believe. They seem to want schools to turn into an extension of their church-- which is not only unthinkably ethnocentric and selfish, it is also insane.
When you find proof that your God exists (not just something that might be God, but God as described in the exact manner in which you believe it/Him/Her to be), be sure to let everyone know.
Last edited by Spatula City; 09-01-2014 at 11:02 AM..
One must also understand what is meant by "theory" in the context of science.
No one disparages the theory of gravity as a mere theory -- or electromagnetic theory or even quantum theory. In popular usage people say "I have a theory about x" and they mean "I have a belief or guess". That is not what science means. What science means is "I have an explanatory framework which is usefully descriptive of reality and which has been independently verified".
What most people seem to think "theory" means would be termed, at best, a "hypothesis" by science. I say, "at best" because a scientifically valid hypothesis must be experimentally falsifiable.
The Theory of Evolution is a proven and accepted explanatory framework that has been independently confirmed.
The Theory of Evolution is NOT an explanation of the origin of life. It has to do with how life evolves, not from whence it came.
The Theory of Evolution does NOT 100% explain every aspect of evolution. There are unknowns and gaps in knowledge and open questions -- but there is also no objective reason to think that when those gaps are eventually filled in, that they will render the current Theory in any meaningful way invalidated. That said, IF that happens, the scientific method, unlike religious dogma, does allow the Theory to be modified accordingly. However in our experience, scientific theories are extended far more often than invalidated. Relativity did not invalidate Newtonian physics, it simply generalized it to account for additional effects. Quantum Physics did not invalidate relativity, it merely extended its reach into the very small and very large scale domains of reality. Newtonian physics is still perfectly adequate for everyday use in the real world at human scale. You can still calculate orbits and other aspects of celestial mechanics with it, etc., you just can't split the atom or explain certain edge cases.
Valid scientific theories are not necessarily intuitive or easy to visualize or understand. To an 18th century student, electromagnetism or chemistry seemed fantastic. To people in the 1920s, Goddard's rocket experiments seemed silly and without practical application. No one in the 1950s could imagine the computing power that currently resides in my pants pocket in the form of an iPhone 5s because everyone "knew" that computers require stadium size air conditioned rooms and people running around with shopping carts full of vacuum tubes to keep it all running. As the president of IBM in that era famously opined, he saw a market for a handful of such devices worldwide.
So it goes with scientific progress. At this moment fundamentalist theists have a strong subjective argument of incredulity against the theory of evolution, based largely on misunderstandings as Odo pointed out. And that means exactly nothing.
In summation, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory in every sense, and is not a philosophical position. Philosophy can of course be applied to it -- as it can be applied to all observable aspects of life. But it is itself a scientific statement of fact, and the aesthetic implications of the science, however distasteful it may be or some, don't enter into it. Science follows evidence wherever it leads, not wherever folks want to go.
This is posted in the interest of obtaining feedback concerning the apparent PHILOSOPHICAL question inferred by orthodox Darwinian evolution theory. Essentially, the underlying premise being that things in 'nature' are simply 'natural' and thereby occur at 'random' or by 'chance' circumstances.
So, what do these folks (proponents of orthodox Darwinian Evolution) mean when they use terms such as 'nature, randomness or chance?'
Can science answer the question of whether or not ANYTHING can or ever has happened totally 'unguided' at 'random' with no outside 'force' or 'power' to guide, create and/or sustain it?
Should orthodox Darwinian Evolution Theory be taught in public school if it is indeed classified as a PHILOSOPHY? Is it proper to teach or infer a philosophical worldview in SCIENCE class in our public schools?
This is an incorrect - and very common - misunderstanding of evolution.
Mutations are essentially random. But the selective process by which certain mutations are preserved in the gene pool and certain mutations are eliminated from the gene pool is absolutely not random. And it is that process of selecting for and against mutations that determines the nature of biological beings.
Consider a pond. Is it random or chance that makes the pond a mirror image of the hole in the Earth it occupies? Is it random or chance that its surface is flat (effectively - it actually has a curve commensurate with its linear proportion of the Earth's circumference, but in any body of water as small as a pond this is beyond the perception of the naked eye of a person, and probably even to instruments is only detectable in idealized conditions absent any wind or currents)? Is it random or chance that collected the billions upon billions of raindrops falling on nearby slopes and ridges to form that pond?
No. No. And, no.
So it is with evolution.
As to your 'theory' comments, in colloquial English, the word 'theory' is used to describe any idea a person has of this or that, no matter how baseless. Ex: "My theory is that Elvis is alive and working at a Circle K in Sarasota!". In science, a theory is the apex. The definition of a scientific theory is much more rigorous. A scientific theory makes extensive predictions that have been upheld by vast experimentation. You know, like the theory of gravity? And as with 'gravity', 'evolution' describes both an observed phenomenon as well as the theory explaining the why behind that observed phenomenon. In evolution, the observed phenomenon is the change of alleles within gene pools over time. And as with the theory of gravity, it can never be proven true - but this does not indicate a fault with either theory, as scientific theories can never be proven true (though they can, at least in concept, be proven false). They can only amass more and more supportive experimental data until they are functionally accepted as fact.
I wonder, do you have a problem with germ theory being taught in biology? Do you want it shunted over to a philosophy class? How about atomic theory in physics, of the kinetic theory of gases in chemistry?
Your post smacks strongly of well-worn creationist attempts to gut high school biology curricula of a subject that upsets them greatly but that they do not understand at all.
This is posted in the interest of obtaining feedback concerning the apparent PHILOSOPHICAL question inferred by orthodox Darwinian evolution theory. Essentially, the underlying premise being that things in 'nature' are simply 'natural' and thereby occur at 'random' or by 'chance' circumstances.
So, what do these folks (proponents of orthodox Darwinian Evolution) mean when they use terms such as 'nature, randomness or chance?'
Can science answer the question of whether or not ANYTHING can or ever has happened totally 'unguided' at 'random' with no outside 'force' or 'power' to guide, create and/or sustain it?
Should orthodox Darwinian Evolution Theory be taught in public school if it is indeed classified as a PHILOSOPHY? Is it proper to teach or infer a philosophical worldview in SCIENCE class in our public schools?
I think the first thing you need to know is that the average biologist does not see Evolution as a random process but a process with a random element. It is constrained by so many elements..... both ubiquitous such as the laws of physics..... and temporary.... such as current environment..... that the word "random" is both important.... and not.... at the same time.
What CLOUDS this discourse is the human penchant for working back from the present reality as if this is the only reality that could have been.
Imagine a droplet on a window...... streaking down in left right pathways..... becoming sentient and asking how did it reach this particular point on the window. It did so due to some of what we call "randomness" but it also had environment such as gravity and other water around it and imperfections in the glass.
The easiest question for sentience in that situation to ask is "how did I get HERE" but the hard questgion that is near impossible to ask is "What are the possibility set of states I COULD have been in now.... including the one I now find myself within...... and how were THEY ALL made possible?"
The philosophical world-view we should instil in our curriculum therefore should be more about understanding the question in the first place.... let alone answering it.
This is posted in the interest of obtaining feedback concerning the apparent PHILOSOPHICAL question inferred by orthodox Darwinian evolution theory. Essentially, the underlying premise being that things in 'nature' are simply 'natural' and thereby occur at 'random' or by 'chance' circumstances.
So, what do these folks (proponents of orthodox Darwinian Evolution) mean when they use terms such as 'nature, randomness or chance?'
Can science answer the question of whether or not ANYTHING can or ever has happened totally 'unguided' at 'random' with no outside 'force' or 'power' to guide, create and/or sustain it?
Should orthodox Darwinian Evolution Theory be taught in public school if it is indeed classified as a PHILOSOPHY? Is it proper to teach or infer a philosophical worldview in SCIENCE class in our public schools?
I think the first thing you need to know is that the average biologist does not see Evolution as a random process but a process with a random element. It is constrained by so many elements..... both ubiquitous such as the laws of physics..... and temporary.... such as current environment..... that the word "random" is both important.... and not.... at the same time.
What CLOUDS this discourse is the human penchant for working back from the present reality as if this is the only reality that could have been.
Imagine a droplet on a window...... streaking down in left right pathways..... becoming sentient and asking how did it reach this particular point on the window. It did so due to some of what we call "randomness" but it also had environment such as gravity and other water around it and imperfections in the glass.
The easiest question for sentience in that situation to ask is "how did I get HERE" but the hard questgion that is near impossible to ask is "What are the possibility set of states I COULD have been in now.... including the one I now find myself within...... and how were THEY ALL made possible?"
The philosophical world-view we should instil in our curriculum therefore should be more about understanding the question in the first place.... let alone answering it.
Biologist?
Go further back. The supposition is a Chemical Matter. Pun intended!
They lay out all the data and see what it tells you. "animals seem to change through time". I dont care who you are, that is what it looks like. So what does that tell us? "evolution" is the story. If fits the observations. Also, if there is a god then he did it through evolution because that is what he is showing us.
The only thing I see written in stone is the rock record. And it is written by the hand of god himself. So I'll take that over literal bible any day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
