The definition of "Theory" and perhaps other big words...

[piece-it pete]

big at least in meaning.

Well Paul you have piqued my curiosity.

In an attempt to de-ignorize and de-stupify myself I'm starting this thread.

We've got your definition:

"Theories are designed to explain WHY facts are. In scientific epistemology, a theory is a well substantiated explanation, that is there is sufficent reason and evidence as to why we should think that a given explanation (evolution, gravity) is valid."

_________________________________

Merriam-Webster:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory&x=9&y=10

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
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

_____________________

This useful definition came up while searching for "scientific theory":

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/theory.html

"A scientific theory is a synthesis of well-tested and verified hypotheses about some aspect of he world around us. When a scientific hypothesis has been confirmed repeated by experiment, it may become known as a scientific law or scientific principle. A scientific fact may be defined as an agreement by competent observers of a series of observations of the same phenomena. From time to time scientific facts are revised by additional data about the world around us. Scientists often employ a model in order to understand a particular set of phenomena. A model is a mental image of the phenomena using terms (or images) with which we are familar. For example, in the planetary model of the atom scientists visualize the atom as a nucleus with electrons orbiting around it in a manner similar to the way that planets revolve around the Sun. While this model is useul in understanding the atom, it is an over-simplified description of a real atom and does not describe/predict all of its attributes."

___________________________________

Actually Paul very similar to yours, with the large IMO exception of "well tested", "verified", and "confirmed". The above professor goes on to say:

"Here are five criteria that are generally used when comparing theories and a new theory statisfying these will then replace a previously accepted theory.

I. The previously accepted theory gave an acceptable explanation of something, the new theory must give the same results.
II. New theory explains something that the PAT [Pete note: Previously Accepted Theory]either got wrong or, more commonly, did not apply.
III. Makes a prediction that is later verified.
IV. Elegance - Aesthetic quality - simple, powerful includes universal symmetries. That is simple, easy-to-remember or apply formulation, experssed as some symmetry of nature, be powerful enough to used in many applications
V. Provide a deeper insight or link to another branch of knowledge"

________________________________________

While searching for the above info I came of course across many many references to "Scientific Method". Here's an online definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.
_______________________________

Interesting how prediction is important enough to be mentioned multiple times. It reminds me of the Russian scientist in the old sci-fi novel "The Black Cloud" (Fred Hoyle, 1957), who says throughout the story "Theory nothing. Prediction everything".

So, to use your two examples, evolution and gravity, I see that one (gravity) has proof in prediction and reproductable testing and the other (evolution) has *none*.

So why on Earth or elsewhere would evolution be a litmus test of rationality, outside of prejudiced views - the enemy of scientific method?

Pete

[paul_pci]

Pete,

You've done some good work here. As you've seem to have realized (hope I'm not misreading you), the standard dictionary is of no help when talking about scientific use of the term theory. I'm glad we are past that.

That one def you say is close to mine except for well tested, verified or confirmed, is what I mean by substantiation. But I will say that terms like verified or confirmed belie the fact that new evidence may/will alter aspects of theory. Abstractly that means while we may hold confidence that one theory has been verified or confirmed by existing evidence, as time progresses new evidence may unseat said verification and confirmation; so much for predictability. My problem then is, that "confirmed" or "verified" is a bit to arrogant and idealized when it comes to forwarding theories. At one point in time we might be so confident as to pop open the champagne and delcare that we have found THE explanation for a given phenomenon, but later on, may come to realize that said theory was insufficient (not necessarily wholly wrong, but deficient in certain aspects). That is why I prefer the vaguer term substantiated. And evolution is. You can deny that, dispute it, but that act of denial or disputation won't alter evolution's substantiation. That theory's substantiation exists independently of your acceptance (or mine for that matter) of it as such.

Now, as for predictability. I think that depends on the specific aim of the given theory. For instance, Newton knew that every time he were to let go an object, it would fall. I really don't think he needed a theory to predict that. (I know; I'm oversimplifying). For Darwin, he was more interested in how different species in his time got to be that way (so diverse; I'm thinking of the finches on the Galapagos islandsfor instance). However, evolutionary biologists would point out that evolution is predictable, but not on the same time line as gravity is, or other theories for that matter. As the theory goes, evolution can and will take thousands and thousands of years for a given species. The more biologically complex, the longer reproduction cycle, the longer evolution/change will take place. Simpler organisms will evolve more quickly. So here is where we can actually witness the "proof" you claim does not exist for evolution. Viruses. If you've or someone you know has ever received a flu shot, you have benefited from evolutionary science. Flu shots are based on one strain of the flu virus because the flu virus mutates, that is it changes and evolves into different strains/species that the medical establishment basically guesses on which a given year people will be stricken by the most. You can't tell me or anyone else that you believe in vacinnations but don't believe in evolution. It just doesn't work that way. When it comes to more complex organims on this planet, we will not be alive to see them evolve into new species, but we witness that very phenomenon all the time when it comes to bacteria and viruses. There's your substantiation. There's your predictability. To recap, while predictability is important, its role varies from specific context and conditions to the next. The timeline on which evolution operates predictably is beyond human life spans for most organisms. But we can see evolution in action for simpler organisms like bacteria and viruses. What is predictable is that species will evolve, change their biological constitution, but no one can predict what that change is, but that is not a flaw in the theory. The theory is predicated on the fact that the only thing that is predictable is change in biological constitution, not what that specific change is.

Look, I'm sorry. Evolution is well substantied. It's bigger than your or me. Its validity doesn't depend on our back and forth here. Same thing with smoking and lung cancer. We can scream to the top of our lungs that smoking does not cause lung cancer, but we both know that won't have any impact on the truth of the matter. We can go back and forth, (and I'm sure we will) but that won't stop the flu virus from mutating next year, necessitating further changes to the vacinne.


BTW: reproducability has to do with the validity of experiments more than it has to do with theories. By definition you cannot reproduce a theory; therefore that is not applicable.

Lastly, I'd like you to explain this evolution as a litmus test for rationality business. Doesn't necessarily sound like what I am asserting. I guess I would be inclined to say that it is irrational to dismiss the theory of evolution, but I usually base that on the fundamental misunderstanding of what theory means and how it is substantiated, etc. But that is not specfic to evolution which is why I bring up the uncontroversial example of gravity. Gravity, contrary to what you want to believe, bears the same epistemological status as evolution, but nobody gets their shorts in a bunch over gravity. To, me, that makes no sense.

If I've missed or ignored anything important here, please point that out.

[piece-it pete]

Paul,

Although the standard dictionary is "substantially" different, tracing root meanings of words certainly helps give a braoder understanding of what that word is trying to communicate.

When it comes down to brass tacks I believe most would agree the scientific meaning of theory, while detailed and application-specific, definitely has something in common with most of the above listed definitions.

Of course a theory can and usually will evolve with new proofs, information, and understanding. From a scientific viewpoint we know squat!

THIS is why "well tested", "verified", and "confirmed" is so important. Otherwise, we might as well be writing fairy tales. A smart and/or very well educated man looking at various infomation may come up with a more pausible sounding explanation for what he sees than a less educated and/or less intellegent one, but without some sort of testing it remains speculation by any name.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=substantiation

One entry found for substantiate.


Main Entry: sub·stan·ti·ate
Pronunciation: s&b-'stan(t)-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
1 : to give substance or form to : EMBODY
2 : to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY <substantiate a charge>
synonym see CONFIRM
- sub·stan·ti·a·tion /-"stan(t)-shE-'A-sh&n/ noun
- sub·stan·ti·a·tive /-'stan(t)-shE-"A-tiv/ adjective

_______________________________________

And while I realise the theory of gravity may have as many proofs as the theory of evolution the FACT of some sort of gravitational forces' existence is easily provable by anyone.

So any scientific philosophy that gives the two the same level of credence is obviously flawed.

I realise that by the theory of evolutions' very definition it would be impossible to say "I will do (a), and this [insert animal] will evolve into (b) as a response". So how about saying "Over (x) many years we will find (y) many examples of evolution occuring naturally"?

THAT fits the theory. Although it states it may take many years the earth has BILLIONS of organisms and of them there should be a verifiable at least incremental change. What are the results of our many years of looking for exactly that?

The flu - mutation is proof of the theory of evolution? That's interesting. Can you show ONE example of a mutation bringing POSITIVE chromosonal change to a complex life form, that would be an absolute neccessity for the theory of evolution to be a reality?

As far as litmus tests of rationality, that is the result of your original statement that those who believe without proof are insane. And here we are arguing about needing proof.

Pete

[paul_pci]

You're killing me Pete,

Definition is my bag, as Austin Powers would say. Thus, I'd usually be the first one to step up to the plate to examine the "evolution" of any definition, as it were, but in this case, given current debates over evolution, I believe its important to stick to the strict definition that scientists mean when using that word. I have and do use the word theory outside of the scientific domain, and I usually do mean something else and usually it does have something to do with the status of how an explanation is or is not verifired, can or cannot be verified, depending on its subject matter. For instance, social, psychoanalytically, or politically based theories often have no concrete evidence associated with them as one would find with scientific theories, not necessarily because they are invalid, but because the subject matter and the claims made therein are of a different class, if you will. I know, this is getting all abstract, but my ultimate point in invoking other intellectual disciplines is that science, be it physical or biological, is mostly an empirical game and thus their theories depend on empirical evidence and mechanisms, where a theory as to why Mr. Smith prefers red cars to blue cars would not be the same as a scientific "theory" because there is no empirical basis as to why a person prefers one color over another. Therefore, I precisely disagree that most Americans understand the differences between the term theory used in a strictly scientific context and that very term used outside that context. I base that conclusion on talking with people and in various readings I've come across. Most Americans who dismiss evolution, as mere theory, do so because they think its just some guess, or hypothesis. But, of course that is wrong. They are uninformed on how scientific epistemology makes a strategic distinction between guess (hypothesis) and substantiated explanation (theory). And, granted, it is more comforting to dismiss a notion thinking that its just someone's guess work than to dismiss a concept that has a whole host of evidence behind it.

Where to go next, where to go next. Um, no, gravitational force is not provable, only that objects fall to the ground, planets revolve around other celestial objects, and light bends is provable. In my mind, and I guess not yours, gravity, as this invisible force (almost Star Wars like) strikes me as more like voodoo than does evolution, being a natural, somewhat random mechanism of biological organisms and their relationship to their environment. Gravity asks us to believe in this magical, invisible force binding objects in the space-time continuum, as it were. Evolution asks us to believe that through random, unpredictable biological variables, species produce variants that eventually do and do not change into wholly different species, depending on the adaptability of the new variation to an existing environment that itself will change across time. We grow up in a culture that does not question gravity but gets all anxious over evolution, but when you step back and break it down, gravity is more voodoo than evolution. I mean we can test the rate at which objects fall on Earth or in a vacuum and create a stable, invariable equation, but at the end of the day, you're still asking people to believe in this invisible force. Let's juxtapose that against the combustion engine. The force that propels a car is not invisible, but has empirical sources and a chain of phycial and chemical cause and effect that gravity just doesn't have. Perhaps I'm wrong, as I am not a physicist, but that is how I understand it. Therefore, I maintain that your are wrong to suggest that giving the same credence to gravity and evolution is flawed. At best, I'm flattering the theory of gravity.

Next: I guess in some sense one should be able to say over x years you will find y changes in z species which may result in b new species, except taking a survey of the biological landscape would suggest its just not that easy. I will use the example of birds and sharks. Birds, of course, have been determined by many evolutionary biologists to be evolved from dinosaurs. Now there is definitely room for doubt and debate about that actual lineage, but there is no doubt that birds did evolve from an entirely different species at a given point in history. Now, you take sharks and you get an entirely different story because sharks are today what they have been for millions and millions of years, relatively unchanged. Scientists estimate that sharks have been around for 200 million years, longer than any other complex animal like birds. How many stages of evolution occurred before their present morphological structure is impossible to say, but it is clear that over time x, no y change has occured. (I'm sure all the fact are not correct here but the basics I'm predicated my general points on are correct). And because evolution is likewise predicated on the notion that not all biological variants are successful, we have two vastly different examples of birds and sharks which ultimately indicate that a generalized formula that over x years, y changes will occur across z species just won't work.

Finding the chromosomal change you want: I wish I was still in contact with my ex-girlfriend, as I really don't have the time for that kind of research and it would get really technical really quickly. Then there's the whole what constitutes a complex life form deal. Yet, a quick web search did reveal an article about S. cerevisiae, otherwise known as yeast and the way geneticists were able to construct an evolutionary tree of related but separate species to show its evolution through marking shared and unique genes. For instance, S. cerevisiae had only 18 genes unique to it and not shared by the other species: S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus. Together, the four species of yeast have a greater than 90% shared genome—very similar to the shared genome between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzee, but I fear you would be too uncomfortable with that association. But I will say this: DNA technology has made it possible to prove evolutionary relations between species. You do believe in DNA don't you? It's the pool of evidence that shows biological relation and distribution that Darwin, of course, didn't have access to, but best substantiates his theory of evolution.

Litmus test: saying that it is insane to believe in something that has no proof does sound like me, but in terms of this debate, what bothers me, or strikes me as insane, is how people can dismiss evolution which has a great amount of substantiation, embrace gravity which has no more substantiation than evolution, and then embrace religion which has absolutely no substantiation. To me that is crazy, but I would not single out evolution as some litmus test. To me it comes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific function of the term theory.

[dean_martin]

Let's get to where the bone is buried here. I'm half-heartedly trying to understand the debate between the proponents of creationism and evolution. Little did I know that one of the cornerstones in this debate is the age of the Earth itself - but it does make sense. If the Earth's age is determined along Biblical timelines then the Earth hasn't been around long enough for evolution to work as set forth by bioligists. At least that's the argument. But who knows how long a "day" was to God? The Bible itself says that there are some things we will not know nor understand. The creationists actually have a scientific basis for disputing the age of the earth through inconsistencies in carbon dating and evidence of relatively rapid forming coal formations.

Creationists, at least the hardcore ones, insist that dinosaurs and humans cohabitated the earth at the same time. Apparently, human footprints, fossilized trilobites and dinosaur bones have been found in close proximity and at the same sedimentary strata level. Of course they also cite Bible verses in Job (Ch. 40&41) as referencing dinosaurs - the Behemoth and the Leviathon. (The editors of my Bibles explain these as hippos and crocodiles in footnotes.) In addition, the Bible is full of references to "exiled" peoples living primitively in the wilderness. The creationists cite these verses as proof of cavemen cohabitating the earth at the same time as socially advanced humans.

Some of the more scientifically oriented creationists (an oxymoron, perhaps) have employed mathematical formulaes to determine an approx number of species that evolution would produce. The earth could not accomodate the results. Bioligists, apparently conceding this point, incorporate another concept to explain why the earth hasn't been overrun.

Bioligists insist that for over 100 years there has been little or no dispute over evolution as fact and that scientific data consistently confirms that the earth's age is in the billions of years. (Just by observation, it seems that each new test or discovery relevant to the earth's age yields the conclusion that the earth is older than what we thought the last time there was a relevant discovery.) OTOH, bioligists readily concede that the method or methods by which evolution occurs is not completely understood.

To explain the fact of evolution, bioligists begin with the pholygeny tree. There is more than one method one can use to fill in the tree, but it's similar to a family tree where relationships are shown within phyla and across phyla, but inherent in constructing this tree are certain inferences which must be made. Of course, an inference is a reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from known facts - at least that is the definition we use in the law. I am not a scientifically oriented person. From this point, the pholygeny tree as proof of evolution becomes very technical. There's no doubt however that there are characteristics that overlap among phyla. But, the ultimate conclusion of evolution is that all species have a common origin. The science of evolution does not attempt to explain how this common source came about. I'm presently looking for a set of bullet points or examples that demonstrate evolution in action, but through lack of time and sketchy research, I don't have anything. The bird's commonality with dinosaurs is probably one, but remember, the ultimate conclusion of evolution is that all living things originated from a single source.

This is a current topic as the debate in Kansas is grabbing headlines. I'll have to look at what each side is asking for and what the issues are before I comment. Most of these debates are over "disclaimers" regarding evolution in textbooks. The new trend is probably a push to include creationism in science books. I'm beginning to believe that the fuel that makes these debates so volatile is ignorance on both sides. I used to think that only the religious zealots fighting the teaching of actual science in the classroom were ignorant. I'm beginning to see that the scientific community has also displayed ignorance of their opponents beliefs. For example, it is foolish to take one phrase from the Bible such as "go unto the four corners of the earth" and conclude that the Bible is fiction because it suggests that the earth is flat. There are verses in the Bible that refer to the earth as a cirlce and that refer to the horizon. It is also foolish to conclude that the Bible is full of ignorance because it classifies a bat as a bird instead of as a mammal - if the people of Israel had to be told not to eat bats, then telling them that bats aren't really birds would probably have turned their world upside down. These are just two examples I've seen in writings of preeminent bioligists that demonstrate either ignorance or disdain.

I have some scientific understanding of the factual concepts of evolution and have no reason to doubt certain aspects of it. OTOH, I have my faith and the beliefs that are inherent in my faith. But I've been able to reconcile quite a bit. If you look at the big picture, both sides agree that all species came from a common source. Similar characteristics within and among phyla not only suggest a common source, but also suggest a design. I would not attempt to date the earth based on a literal reading of 7 consecutive 24-hour periods in Genesis. According to the Bible, the second person on earth did not come from dust, but was "derived" from the first. According to the Bible, the serpent had legs at one time. There's a living species of whale that has bones that suggest it had legs at one time. Of course my reconciliations may make me look like a simpleton to some, but at least I'm not consumed by this debate. I do believe that if there is evidence that the earth is not as old as we think it is, then that evidence is fair game for kids of appropriate age, even if there are ideas that suggest that this evidence doesn't have anything to do with the age of the earth, but is actually evidence of something else.

[MomurdA]

please quit using the term evolution when not talking about evolution:). This next one goes back to the religion topic, but I just dont see how anybody can take the word from a 1500 year old book, compiled word of mouth for 500 years before it was first printed, as anything but a moral guide to living a good life and gaining widom(a la Aesops fables, the Book of Virtues). Im talking about ideas from a time in human history when almost nobody could read, write, add, subtract, etc.

My point is, that with more information and knowledge, better ideas come into people's minds. Look at the progression of mathematics over the last 300 years. Or, maybe im a blasphemer and when i hit submit ill have a front row seat to an eternity of damnation. I'll let you decide.

[dean_martin]

please quit using the term evolution when not talking about evolution:). This next one goes back to the religion topic, but I just dont see how anybody can take the word from a 1500 year old book, compiled word of mouth for 500 years before it was first printed, as anything but a moral guide to living a good life and gaining widom(a la Aesops fables, the Book of Virtues). Im talking about ideas from a time in human history when almost nobody could read, write, add, subtract, etc.

My point is, that with more information and knowledge, better ideas come into people's minds. Look at the progression of mathematics over the last 300 years. Or, maybe im a blasphemer and when i hit submit ill have a front row seat to an eternity of damnation. I'll let you decide.

I was talking about the debate between proponents of evolution and creationism. I thought my comments on evolution were correct albeit over-simplified. Although I'm not well-versed in biology, I understand the concepts. I'm not a Bible scholar either but before I write off the creationists, I would like to know a little more about their position. Yes, I did take this in the direction of the Religion thread, but this thread is really beating around the bush to get to the debate, IMO. I gave a little more ink to the creationist side because I personally haven't seen much coverage of their contentions. I actually found some of their contentions interesting and logically based, after doing some research.

I think some would take issue with you that evolution is a "better idea" than being created by God in God's image - more scientific perhaps and easier to substantiate, but "better"? I used to think that those opposed to teaching evolution in schools were closed-minded whackos. But now I think that if someone has something to say, I should at least listen before rejecting their ideas. Also, I have no desire to see anyone condemned to an eternity of damnation and further it's not my decision, if such a decision is to be made. What I find disapointing is the level of venom in the debate. (I'm not referring to your comments at all.) Geez, we're all here no matter how we got here and we ought to learn how to live with another - which goes back to your reference of living a good life (which is generally measured by how you treat others) and gaining wisdom (which I believe includes patience and tolerance).

[piece-it pete]

Hey thanks Mr Martin :) for injecting a little civility. I suppose I got a little hot under the collar there.

This is the heart of this issue, to me, that evolution is taught as a fact - to children as well as the masses - with no reservations, as if we knew it to be true.

I too believed there was some sort of accommodation possible between evolution and creationism, maybe Gods' days are loooooonnnngg, etc. But when I realised that we had been massively lied to in school regarding history (when I started reading history on my own) I also started taking a hard look at the "other things" we had been taught as gospel. (pun intended!)

Of course 1 + 1 = 2. But evolution is a golden turkey ( :D ) - ripe for the plucking. (Yes, really, if you stop looking at it from the assumption that it is true it's somewhat weak. Unfortunately its' truth is sooo taken for granted one is viewed as some sort of freak for even questioning it, let alone not believing it.)

As a theory it's fine, I can see why/how Darwin came to his conclusion, it appears logical using deduction, but as a fact (what it's being taught as and argued for) it is almost laughable in its' lack of proof. (Remember Reagans' "Trust, but verify"? In science, it's "Don't trust. Verify!")

Which becomes clearer every year, as there are lots of folks spending millions annually looking for proof (verification). They've been looking for over a hundred years, and particularly intensively now for AT LEAST 25 years.

Why haven't they found any?





I enjoy saying that. :D

Well I suppose what I really enjoy is poking holes in the widely held belief that we actually *know* what's going on. Anyone who steps back can see that we really, really don't.

Look at the Voyager thing you mentioned (great post! I'd have loved to been there). It's speeding up - not planned/expected?! I saw on PBS a year or two ago that they had found a very serious problem with the black matter theory, which they had dreamed up to cover a huge flaw in the big bang theory (lack of final entropy)!

And the age issue. Heck just about anything we think we know - I stick to the Russians' statement, "Theory nothing. Prediction everything". The hubris of man has no bounds, God or no God.

Doesn't it bother anyone that the Origin of Species is the indisputable basis of "justified" racism, that logically follows from the theory itself? If proven true, I would shrug and say, that's how it is. But, still no proof. If one believes the theory to be true, shouldn't we be having a conversation on the best way to advance our own races' intellect/strength/health? It follows that we should have a master plan on helping nature along - right? Or are we too cowed by PC to do what would obviously be the right thing? Hey it could go farther - aren't we smart enough to do it :p ?

BTW, as far as reconciling evolution and the Bible, I've come across one very big problem(that you mentioned), namely that Eve was made from Adams' rib. I don't see how is it possible, that women came from man, from an evolutionary viewpoint? It is quite specific.

I like the comments you made regarding God and creation, the fact is even as believers we just don't know how He did it. I certainly don't discard science, rather I'm fascinated by it, again as a believer (even an unbeliever, if one understands our theology) it stands to reason that God is the master engineer, as well as the master intellect. Many early scientists understood this, they were trying to figure out what He did, and how He did it. I've come to the conclusion (unsubsantiated :) ) that He doesn't mind, as we are created in His image we *should* be able to understand, well at least we will, when we die.

I'd also like to point out that it was the culture bred by Christianity that created the industrial/nuclear/information age, as we don't worry about disturbing the "spirit of the tree", or whatever, and don't worry about "disturbing harmonic balances" or other such IMO nonsense - no superstition. Even evolution - show me the smoking gun, not inferences, possibilities, likelihoods, or deductions, and I would eventually agree.

Perhaps I should live in Missouri :D .

Pete

[paul_pci]

Pete,

For what it's worth, I don't think you uncivil. It's a hot topic of debate as it were, and all things considered, I'd say this exchange has been quite civil. But I do have a big bone to pick with your last contribution.

Race and racism. Now you've really hit on my specialty. You are absolutely wrong that evolution, specifiically, Darwin's theory is the "indisputable" basis of justified racism. Race, and racism were around and were justified long before Darwin ever uttered his first word, which I imagine was "barnacle." And I don't mean, since the dawn of time "race" and "racism." I mean that our current, modern notion of race emerged in mid 18th century, long before Darwin fancied himself a precocious naturalist. Notions of race and attending racism were, likewise, long justified by quasi-scientific theories. What you are referring to in a roundabout way is Social Darwinism and Eugenics, both deplorable theories, but neither of which follow from the logic of evolution, as you incorrectly state. Herbert Spencer is the creator of Social Darwinism (Principles of Sociology, 1879) from whom Darwin got the idea of "survival of the most fit." Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist, is the founder of eugenics, and I would point you to two of his works, Hereditary Genius (1869) and Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (1883). (As a side note, Galton was a half cousin of Darwin and also the inventor of fingerprint analysis). Both schools of thought impose a paradigm of hierarchical social value onto the model of evolution, whereby both Spencer and Galton, to be sure, assume certain social, racial, and economic characteristics to be more valuable than others and from that use facets of Darwin's evolution to create racist theories. The theory of evolution has no social value to it and makes no such value or teleological pronouncements, and any suggestion that it does is flat out wrong, either uninformed or misinformed. I suggest to you that you do more research and get your facts straight as this is a common misperception about Darwin's evolution. That people have and will continue to apply teleological paradigms to evolutionary principles is unfortunate, but it is just plain false to claim that evolution is a teleological theory whose logical conclusion leads to eugenics. Social Darwinism and eugenics asserts that some traits are more desireable, usually accordingly to some cultural value system, whereas evolution is only concerned with which morphological traits will produce an adavantage for survival to successfully produce offspring who also bear that same morphological characteristic. Darwin was focused on biological perpetuation or lack thereof, not whether it was more socially preferable to have blonde hair or brown.

In terms of the Bible, I should remind you that there are two creation stories, only one of which involves the seemingly painful rib extraction. Genesis (NRSV) 1:27 reads: "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Only later in Genesis 2:21-22 do we get the Adam's rib business. My point being that the first passage mentions nothing about woman coming from man, specifically. Before you attempt to reconcile Darwin witih the Bible, perhaps you'd like to reconcile the bible with itself.

I remain dissapointed that you still use the term "proof" along side the term theory as I have repeatedly stated that proof or lack of proof and that specific epistemological criteria does not apply to theory, especially in the scientific use fo the term, as explainations are not proven, but explanations for proven facts. The facts are that species change and that existing species (I'll leave out the business of fossils) are morphologically and genetically related to other existing species, for instance. This suggests an explanation that a given species evolved from another one species its related to or that both (or more) related species evolved from a prior related species, for instance. I want to again, state that proof or lack of does not apply to theory—substantiation does. There is really no reason to dismiss evolution as an explanation for species differentiation. It's a compelling explanation and the facts fit well within the parameters and logic of the theory. If you're reason that you don't want to believe in evolution is that you believe in some invisible guy in the sky who created all life, then there's really nothing to say about that. But to go on and on about proof of a theory just tell me that you don't understand the epistemological basics of scientific knowledge. I hope I don't sound too condescending as I don't' mean to be. I guess what I'd like to say is that if you don't want to believe in evolution, I hope you got something better than an invisible guy described in a 5000 year old book.

[piece-it pete]

Paul,

Yeah it hasn't been too bad. Although there I was talking about grace and showing very little - over and forgotten.

Anyway it seems there is a major misunderstanding of my position. To be clear: I believe God created everything. But I don't claim to know how !

Regarding the quote "Genesis (NRSV) 1:27 reads: "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Only later in Genesis 2:21-22 do we get the Adam's rib business." (end quote), He said "I created them", and then gave greater detail. Like saying evolution created Man, then becoming more specific. No reconciliation neccessary.

I was of course talking with another blood-cleansed person. We Christians have PLENTY of time to go over stuff ;) .

Creationism is a misnomer, as we both believe in creation, be it the big bang and evolution, and/or the hand of another. We can remove religion from the debate of the validity of evolution entirely - rather than compare it to others, we can let evolution defend itself, if it can.

I am not arguing that evolution is wrong, although it looks that way to me, rather that for one to assume it is accurate is folly based on the info at hand, which is largely deduction. (Assumptions are not good in science, anyway.) It might be a good theory to some. But according to your statement "I want to again, state that proof or lack of does not apply to theory?substantiation does" it sounds to me that you are saying explainations CAN'T be right or wrong, only substantiated?

So there is no difference between: Me seeing a circular saw blade, with all its' little teeth, then when I see the blur of it in action cutting the wood thinking that the little teeth are actually doing the cutting, vs me seeing it in action without seeing it beforehand and guessing how it works. To include that guess as a scientific given doesn't cut it with me. Before something is assumed to be true, taught to be *correct* to our kids, SHOW ME THE MONEY. Dare I say proof? Or is requesting hard verification unscientific?

I never realised that matter cared about our philosophy.

Because in reality being correct matters. Most scientists subscibe to the belief that a theory can't be right or wrong? VERY clearthinking, those guys. I will never get in a car designed by those scientists, that's for sure!


I haven't read any social Darwinism books and don't know any on their theories/hypothesies (and I'm certainly not implying racism on anyones' part here), but when I consider the basis of evolution - the fittest are most likely to reproduce and pass their new, successful traits on - it makes sense that some Homo Sapiens would be/are smarter, stronger, or heathier than others, as there are.

If intelligence was brought into being in this race for survival, as Darwin believed, then doesn't it go to follow that eventually one branch of said Homo Sapiens will use that intelligence to attempt to develop it, trying to build upon that advantage and "take the lead"?

Further, that that is almost predestined to happen eventually, according to this theory? If WE don't do it, someone or something might, no, probably, no almost certainly will. Or by becoming concerned for our less healthy/intelligent/strong members and caring for them, even letting them reproduce, are we dooming ourselves to evolutionary failure, by not just halting the natural process but actually receding, becoming overall LESS healthy/intelligent/strong by letting the weaker traits spread further into the general gene pool (like bad hips in dogs)?

Yes, we're on top NOW, and can allow this. However according to Darwin this WILL change. If we truly are the best equipped for survival we would be using our crowning ability (intelligence) to not only advance our own species BUT ALSO to find and identify potential threats and eradicate them - if possible.

Seems logical to me, even as an unsubstantiated hypothesis. IF the theory of evolution is true.

Unless emotion stands in the way, causing weakness (actions not in the species best interest), that will eventually cause our downfall and replacement by a superior (at surviving) species.

Perhaps the Planet of the Apes ---- is right ( :D ). (Well, except that they had feelings too.)

More likely Borg-like or just plain insectic-like. Hey, who knows what wonderful creatures have sprung up in the universe through the astounding random power of evolution, powerful minds and hideous monsters all created from inert matter. Sorry, but that's a tough sell to a skeptical customer without some hard proof. Maybe a good theory, though!

Pete

[paul_pci]

Dude, talk about making assumptions. There's nothing in Genesis that explicitly states one creation verse is an elaboration or specification of another creation verse. You're assuming that's the case. So, there.

Back to the proof business. Proof and "right or "wrong" are two different places on the epistemological spectrum. Again, facts, like objects fall or species change, go extinct, etc. are fact and theories are explanations which we would term right or wrong, although I'll be the first to say that while we can say that a given theory/explanation can be absolutely wrong, there's no way to verify that a theory is absolutely right, yet with sufficient evidence/substantiation, we can be confident that a given theory is right in its explanatory power, if not on the right track. Proof is for fact and right, wrong, and substantiation is for theories/explanation. But the problem in this culture is that since theories cannot, by definition, be absolutely right, people will outright dismiss them accordingly to their arbitrary biases (yes, perhaps you should read religion here). Again, I compare gravity to evolution. Gravity is no more absolutely right than is evolution, yet no one gets their shorts into a bunch over gravity because it doesn't seem to conflict with preconceived arbitrary metaphysical beliefs. My contention is that no reasonable person can embrace gravity and at the same time dismiss evolution. That is absolutely irrational. I would like to leave the big bang out of this since the evidence supporting that theory is far more sketchy than with evolution or gravity. I liked your saw analogy and yes, a lot of scientific thoeries are deductive, in that they explain existing facts, which by nature is deductive. I don't see that as a flaw, but merely the state of affairs when it comes to explaning natural phenomena. But I would remind you that with advancing DNA technology, evolution is getting less and less deductive and far more precise in that way it can show biological relations between separate species. I've said this before: it drives me nuts when people, such as yourself, will believe in some invisible divine, supernatural being when there is absolutely no reason in the world to (and, no, a 5,000 yr. old book is not a compelling reason to believe in an invisible being) and then absolutely disregard evolution given all the fossil, morphological, and DNA evidence supporting it. To me, that's epistemological hypocrisy whereby you have two mutually exclusive criteria for belief when it comes to some 5000 year old book and contemporary scientific inquiry. If you were to apply the exact same criteria for belief to both, I'd hardly think the religious view would some how win out. But let's face it: you believe God created human beings and no amount of evidence suggesting otherwise, be it evolution or anything else, is going to change that, no matter how open you claim to be. Religious believes, it seems to me, are sitting on top of a house of cards. If you remove the divine creation of man card, the whole structure falls down for them.

Back to eugenics: I'm not clear on your latest remarks on the human race surviving, but I'll try and respond with that I think you're saying, or I'll just ramble on. First, there is only one branch of homo sapiens, as it were, so I'm not sure what you mean by one branch using intelligence to their advantage. But anyways, basically, I think people over estimate just how smart human beings have to be to survive on the levels of a species. We just have to be smart enough to protect ourselves from the elements, stay away from would-be predators (put yourself in a cage with a tiger and see how confident we are on top of the food chain), and catch/produce food. We all like to laugh at those who can't program a VCR, but consider how advanced an intelligence that simple task is from an evolutionary point of view. I don't think the survival of the human species rests on whether someone can sucessfully record Golden Girls. At any rate, it should be clear to anyone who can do math that the presence of physical and/or mental weaknesses have not doomed, nor do they threaten to doom the human species. Given that fact that we are more than 6 billion strong, what harm is it really going to do let persons with, let's pick something at random, heart defects reproduce. Persons with physical and mental deficiencies, if you wish to call it that, are such a fraction of the population, that even if they were to incease tenfold, would still not pose a threat to the survival of the human species. And if you knew your history, you'd know that disease is a far great threat to thinning the human population than anything else, which has nothing to do with being stupid or having a bum hip, but rather the luck of the draw of evolution, as it were. Check out Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's a great read. The final word I'll interject, this time, about eugenics is that there is a significant difference between an "ideal" biological population and one that is "fit" for its environment and its challenges. You may watch the highlights of the Special Olympics and think that is not the "ideal" condition for the perpetuation of the human species, but those folks in no way limit or hinder the survivability of the human species. No one could claim otherwise with the backdrop of over 6 billion people and be taken seriously.

Paul.