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.
You mean they've all been exposed to the only view with hard facts to back it up. Yes, we understand that.
It seems that there have been a lot of facts proven to be myth over the centuries. How do you determine which are destined to remain fact and which are not? A lot of our facts are only facts based on our current understanding, which presumably is constantly changing.
It seems prudent to me to teach the predominent theory considered to be factual as fact, but to at least give acknowledgement to other theories that cannot be disproved as potential alternatives pending more indepth understanding.
It seems that good science would simply maintain that an idea is an hyposthesis until proven or disproven. It should not reject an idea outright that has not been proven one way or another.
Proving one set of characteristics in no way provides evidence of disproving another set of characteristics as a given set can be described by multiple characteristics and both be valid. Saying I am not my fathers son by proving I am my mothers son is illogical. ID states that both Creationism and Evolutionary theory are compatible and not mutually exclusive. I am unaware of any definitive evidence that proves God does not exist or that current Scientific Thought will remain static with it's current set of facts.
It seems that there have been a lot of facts proven to be myth over the centuries. How do you determine which are destined to remain fact and which are not? A lot of our facts are only facts based on our current understanding, which presumably is constantly changing.
Yes, it depends on one's standards for verification, authority, and validity. Prior to the advent of the scientific method, those standards were quite slipshod and mostly in the hands of despots, generals, and prophets and priests. "Facts" were proclamations from the mouths of the powerful.
Please use the word 'fact' in only one way to avoid confusing your audience. Just because someone believed 2,500 years that the Earth is flat doesn't mean that it was or is a fact that the earth is flat. The notion of a 'fact' is a modern one.
Make sure you aren't using "theory" instead of the word "hypothesis". There is quite a difference. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in general practice, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important.
A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.
While I understand the difference and what you are pointing out, I was merely using the term and relating to what was said on the interview.
Make sure you aren't using "theory" instead of the word "hypothesis". There is quite a difference. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in general practice, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important.
A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.
That's putting it too loosely, I would say. The guess is based on the relevant known and verified facts. The fewer the relevant facts, the more 'speculative' would be the guess.
Although I do believe in evolution, I have to say that Ben Stiller did make a good point in this trailer. Years ago, people would have been persecuted, blacklisted, etc. for saying IE *wasn't* true. Today, people do in fact lose their jobs over saying IE *is* true (or even just saying it's a possibility). So really, what's the difference? Either way, we obviously haven't come very far.
I do feel that evolution should be taught in schools as the leading scientific *theory* of species specification, but they should indeed call it a theory. I would want them to. I know how upset I was to learn that the man found in the cave in the Neander valley was actually crippled and arthritic. Having been touted formerly by many scientific authorities as "representative" of his species, I assumed all Neanderthals were stooped and brutish. I had come to "know" quite a bit about Neanderthals while I was growing up, reading all this stuff based on theories that weren't usually called theories--they were pretty much taken for granted as being scientifically "true". I felt sad and felt a tiny bit of a loss of my "familiar Neanderthal".
Today I LOVE learning about evolution (and believe in it, but also believe in God--the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, as I'm sure most people know by now), but I never, ever take any of the science I learn about as absolute immutable fact--I take it as our current interpretation of evidence, hard evidence, with some supposition thrown in. You HAVE to throw it in. "Other australopithecines who had teeth like this, probably ate this, so this one probably did too..." Yes. Probably. Not definitely. This viewpoint doesn't make me love science any less. I still love it as much as ever--maybe more so. And I believe that we build on what we know, refine it...I don't believe that finding something "wrong" in one former scientific theory negates the validity of all science.
But since evolution is based on theory largely *but not entirely* supported by fact depending upon what exact species, historical/geologic period, location, etc. you're talking about, it should be presented in a science classroom as a scientific theory, supported *so far* by this, this and this.
And religious discussion...including creation theory...should stay in religious or philosophical classrooms. Because like it or not, creationism is NOT as completely (not nearly as completely) supported by physical data and specific scientific study as evolution is, so there's no way you can call Christian creation theory a science any more than you can call the indigenous American belief of the world being created on the back of a turtle science.
But to outright blacklist *any* creationist teaching in the classroom, even to point it out as another theory or to outline information on that religion? That IS just as narrow as authorities having done the exact opposite in medieval times.
How far have we really come in that case?
ETA: For clarification...and also to say that as RoaminRed stated regarding another poster, it's possible I'm mixing the terms hypothesis and theory. I don't think I am in this particular post, but since I'm not 100% sure, I wanted to apologize in advance for confusing anyone more learned than I by misusing these terms.
JerZ wrote:
"...But since evolution is based on theory ..."
You're already in the weeds in your understanding. Evolution *is* a theory. And a scientific theory is, by definition, not mere speculation. Science's understanding of *gravity* is also termed a 'theory'. To understand that evolution and gravity have the same status of knowledge in science would be a significant thing to understand.
--And coincidental. June was reading the following over the weekend:
"It is because both science and religion have been too narrowly conceived, and have been too exclusively dichotomized and separated from each other, that they have been seen to be two mutually exclusive worlds. Science...mistakenly conceived of itself as having nothing to say about ends or ultimate values or spiritual values. This is the same as saying that these ends are entirely outside the range of natural human knowledge, and they can never be known in a confirmable, validated way, in a way that could satisfy intelligent men, as facts satisfy them. This dichotomizing of knowledge and values has also pathologized the organized religions by cutting them off from facts, from knowledge, from science, even to the point of often making them the enemies of scientific knowledge."
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,282,703 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
JerZ wrote:
"...But since evolution is based on theory ..."
You're already in the weeds in your understanding. Evolution *is* a theory. And a scientific theory is, by definition, not mere speculation. Science's understanding of *gravity* is also termed a 'theory'. To understand that evolution and gravity have the same status of knowledge in science would be a significant thing to understand.
That brings back some memories of the great debate about gravity vs. intelligent falling. Of course all sane people know that "gravity" is actually the FSM pushing on things. Shorter people get pushed on by the FSM more than tall people, they are truly The Chosen People. Also the Gospel of the FSM states that the first man created by the FSM was a midget.
--And coincidental. June was reading the following over the weekend:
"It is because both science and religion have been too narrowly conceived, and have been too exclusively dichotomized and separated from each other, that they have been seen to be two mutually exclusive worlds. Science...mistakenly conceived of itself as having nothing to say about ends or ultimate values or spiritual values. This is the same as saying that these ends are entirely outside the range of natural human knowledge, and they can never be known in a confirmable, validated way, in a way that could satisfy intelligent men, as facts satisfy them. This dichotomizing of knowledge and values has also pathologized the organized religions by cutting them off from facts, from knowledge, from science, even to the point of often making them the enemies of scientific knowledge."
-Abraham Maslow.
Fear from both sides seems to be like iron bars keeping us from seeing the benefits of both.
What a world we would have if we'd drop the division, and pursue oneness.
godspeed,
freedom
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.
And...
