Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by aharvey

Agent Smith,

I am not making fun of anyone, I am not trying to make lay people feel stupid, I did not create this particular problem, and I am hardly the first scientist to complain about the constant confounding of the term when lay people refer disparagingly to evolutionary theory. I can only guess that you are brand new to the whole creationist-evolution controversy, so let me bring you up to speed. Go to Google, do a search for the following, using the quotes as provided:

"scientific theory" "just a theory"

I just did this and got 1,740 hits. Look over as many as you need to convince you that, far from poking fun at Nineveh in particular or lay people in general, I was genuinely offering a solution to a well-established, long-standing, all-too-common problem that has to this day been impossible to fix. And let me ask you this? Why is it "the scientists'" fault that lay people use the word "theory" to mean "speculation"? What's wrong with putting an adjective in front of the lay definition of the term, especially when the adjective at least sounds exactly like the phrase you put in front of the word "theory" when you disparage evolutionary theory anyways? It seems like the perfect solution, absolutely removing the ambiguity that none of us likes.

This is what I got on theory;

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




For your sake I will refer to the evolutionary theory as evolutionary conjecture or evolutionary hypothesis.
 

Jukia

New member
Originally posted by Agent Smith



For your sake I will refer to the evolutionary theory as evolutionary conjecture or evolutionary hypothesis.

Very helpful, why not just call it evolution? But no, we have to play word games instead of investigating the facts. Sorry it has been a long week and a longer day. But this is plain silly.
 

john2001

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Originally posted by Agent Smith

This is what I got on theory;

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 .

For your sake I will refer to the evolutionary theory as evolutionary conjecture or evolutionary hypothesis.


Basically, the dictionary definition 5. is what scientists view the theory of evolution to be. You may have your own opinion, but that is not a scientifically defensible one.

To be more complete about this, however, since you are not a scientist, and are apparently not very familiar with scientific matters, I would point out that the common terms "law", "theory", and "hypothesis" have the following usages in scientific context:

A "law" in the scientific usage is:

1) a necessary or defining assumption. (Example: Newton's laws of motion,
Fourier's law of heat, Newton's law of friction, etc.)
2) an easily identified pattern of observed behavior, usually expressed
as a mathematical relation (Example: Kepler's laws and other empirical
curve fits, the periodic table of the elements, the geologic column)
3) any other fundamental assumption derived from our observations
and experiences.
(Example: the laws of thermodynamics, the assumption or principle of causality.)

Theory and Hypothesis both are operably
the same thing:

A description of a physical system bearing the property that it makes predictions that can be tested (i.e. it can have its range of validity delimited if the predictions don't come true) through observations or experiments. (Note, that an "experiment" need not be laboratory affair. It may just as easily be an "expedition" into the field, or a reexamination of previously collected data.)


Sometimes the tested hypothesis will still carry the handle "hypothesis" for historical reasons. (Example: In seismology H.F. Reid's "elastic rebound hypothesis" for the generation of earthquakes.)

Theonly distinction between hypothesis and theory is that hypothesis indicates a scientifically testable conjecture, whereas a theory operably allows the organization of known observations, and the prediction of results from new sets of observations.

In the case of evolution, the pertinent laws are:

1) law of taxonomy
(apparent relatedness of all organisms
both living and extinct in a nested
heirarchy)
2) law of faunal succession
(the observed nested heirarchical
structure of the fossil record)
3) change of allele frequencies
(genetic change in populations)

The notion of common descent with modification and natural selection (which characterizes all Darwinian-style theories of evolution) ties those laws together.

So powerful are 1), 2), and 3) that even a non-Darwinian theory, including such things as "intelligent design," should a scientific theory ever be developed for such a thing, must necessarily contain 1), 2), and 3). Thus, even ID will be an "evolution" theory.
 

Stratnerd

New member
AS,

so many posts all over the place...

So what is your opinion on Coral Ridge and CSI's new relationship?

What new thing could they possibly do? Creationists don't do and, more importantly, can't do science. I say this because they cannot ever falsify their basic premise - that the bible is True. Science works by trashing favorite paradigms.

Stratnerd, do you agree with aharvey about the defining or redefining of theory? Do you agree that science should be able to have it's own segregated version of the word theory that differs from the one already in use?
I'm fine with theory having two context-dependent meanings. In a conversation the context should be apparent. I have more problems with the word "smart".
 

aharvey

New member
Originally posted by Agent Smith
For your sake I will refer to the evolutionary theory as evolutionary conjecture or evolutionary hypothesis.

Agent Smith,

Well, you've made the wrong choice (not my opinion, statement of fact). I see one of two, not mutually exclusive, explanations for this:

1. You didn't do the Google search I recommended, or didn't visit any of the thousands of sites that deal with the question "Is evolution 'just a theory?' " If you did, you would know conclusively that it is the considered evaluation of the scientific community that evolution is not justa theory, it is scientific theory.

2. You are really doing this for your sake, not mine, because you refuse to accept that the scientific community would actually consider evolution to be a true scientific theory (definition #5 in your list).

You would be right, on the other hand, to refer to the creation conjecture or creation hypothesis, or to call creationism justa theory, since creationism has not shown the chops necessary for the scientific community to be able to elevate it to the rank of scientific theory.
 

Stratnerd

New member
Niv,

S. Olsen and Feduccia, critics of the dino-bird hypothesis, have been quiet for the past couple years. They weren't creationists but had other ideas (birds and dinos are sister groups instead of the former being nested in the latter) but I always found their arguments weak.

Like creationists, their arguments boil down to "I don't like it".
 

Stratnerd

New member
Aharvey,

I wouldn't, and I don't think you can, call creationism a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is a "working" explanation that we hope to test. Creationists explanations are either taken as dogma (the earth is ~ 6000 years old) or untestable (God created DNA a particular way).
 

Stratnerd

New member
New suggestions and probably coulds aren't enough proof for me about the "origin of flight" on the theory of "dinos to birds".
since this is the language of science, I guess you can never be convinced... regardless if you accept creationism as dogma then under what circumstances could change your mind?

The missing links are still missing.
Not at all. For some reason you're fixated on A'raptor. We've shown that it isn't on display despite your insistance and then you hand wave the other specimens away without any justification. Interesting!
 

aharvey

New member
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Aharvey,

I wouldn't, and I don't think you can, call creationism a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is a "working" explanation that we hope to test. Creationists explanations are either taken as dogma (the earth is ~ 6000 years old) or untestable (God created DNA a particular way).

Stratnerd,

Hmm. I have to assume creationist scientists would dispute your statements, otherwise they would not be able to even pretend it was science. As long as creationism is advanced as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, I will insist that it needs to have the basic elements of a scientific proposition. That's why I will continue to press for hypotheses, evidence, predictions, models, etc.
 

Stratnerd

New member
I have to assume creationist scientists would dispute your statements
I'm sure they would but I don't know on what grounds.

It should be obvious to most folks, even to creationists, that the hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old is quite falsified using just about any set of data you please. But they still put it forth! So they can't claim that a 6000 y.o. earth is a hypothesis.

I wish they would treat their questions in a scientific manner then they could accept that their positions are not in line with fact and can all move on.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by aharvey

Agent Smith,

Well, you've made the wrong choice (not my opinion, statement of fact). I see one of two, not mutually exclusive, explanations for this:

1. You didn't do the Google search I recommended, or didn't visit any of the thousands of sites that deal with the question "Is evolution 'just a theory?' " If you did, you would know conclusively that it is the considered evaluation of the scientific community that evolution is not justa theory, it is scientific theory.

2. You are really doing this for your sake, not mine, because you refuse to accept that the scientific community would actually consider evolution to be a true scientific theory (definition #5 in your list).

You would be right, on the other hand, to refer to the creation conjecture or creation hypothesis, or to call creationism justa theory, since creationism has not shown the chops necessary for the scientific community to be able to elevate it to the rank of scientific theory.
Even in the scientific community it is still only a scientific theory.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by Stratnerd

since this is the language of science, I guess you can never be convinced... regardless if you accept creationism as dogma then under what circumstances could change your mind?

Not at all. For some reason you're fixated on A'raptor. We've shown that it isn't on display despite your insistance and then you hand wave the other specimens away without any justification. Interesting!
I thought this was about something completely different and not the A'raptor. Now for something completely different.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by john2001

Basically, the dictionary definition 5. is what scientists view the theory of evolution to be. You may have your own opinion, but that is not a scientifically defensible one.

To be more complete about this, however, since you are not a scientist, and are apparently not very familiar with scientific matters, I would point out that the common terms "law", "theory", and "hypothesis" have the following usages in scientific context:

A "law" in the scientific usage is:

1) a necessary or defining assumption. (Example: Newton's laws of motion,
Fourier's law of heat, Newton's law of friction, etc.)
2) an easily identified pattern of observed behavior, usually expressed
as a mathematical relation (Example: Kepler's laws and other empirical
curve fits, the periodic table of the elements, the geologic column)
3) any other fundamental assumption derived from our observations
and experiences.
(Example: the laws of thermodynamics, the assumption or principle of causality.)

Theory and Hypothesis both are operably
the same thing:

A description of a physical system bearing the property that it makes predictions that can be tested (i.e. it can have its range of validity delimited if the predictions don't come true) through observations or experiments. (Note, that an "experiment" need not be laboratory affair. It may just as easily be an "expedition" into the field, or a reexamination of previously collected data.)


Sometimes the tested hypothesis will still carry the handle "hypothesis" for historical reasons. (Example: In seismology H.F. Reid's "elastic rebound hypothesis" for the generation of earthquakes.)

Theonly distinction between hypothesis and theory is that hypothesis indicates a scientifically testable conjecture, whereas a theory operably allows the organization of known observations, and the prediction of results from new sets of observations.

In the case of evolution, the pertinent laws are:

1) law of taxonomy
(apparent relatedness of all organisms
both living and extinct in a nested
heirarchy)
2) law of faunal succession
(the observed nested heirarchical
structure of the fossil record)
3) change of allele frequencies
(genetic change in populations)

The notion of common descent with modification and natural selection (which characterizes all Darwinian-style theories of evolution) ties those laws together.

So powerful are 1), 2), and 3) that even a non-Darwinian theory, including such things as "intelligent design," should a scientific theory ever be developed for such a thing, must necessarily contain 1), 2), and 3). Thus, even ID will be an "evolution" theory.
And even aharvey said it is a scientific theory which to me means it is still only a theory. So just for ease on my part I will go back to calling evolution a theory because even evolutionary scientists haven't been able to take it beyond the theory stage.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Aharvey,

I wouldn't, and I don't think you can, call creationism a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is a "working" explanation that we hope to test. Creationists explanations are either taken as dogma (the earth is ~ 6000 years old) or untestable (God created DNA a particular way).
So you are suggesting that evolution is the dogma of science and that it is completely testable?
 

Stratnerd

New member
So you are suggesting that evolution is the dogma of science and that it is completely testable?
it has become "dogma" after most people realized that evolution is the only reasonable alternative. Completely testable? I don't know about completely but there are observations that would falsify evolution including

1. New physical data comes available that explains how the older data is false and the earth is <<< younger AND still accounts for observations that suggest that it is old (e.g., radiometric dating)

2. Some new data becomes available that shows that divergence rates are false and that populations/species are actually <<<<< younger than previously thought AND still accounts for estimates of populations/species that are old

3. New fossil beds are found providing that modern taxa were found thoughout the fossil record

4. Evolution is found to be physically impossible.

there are probably others but I'm in a rush... basically, if the creationists arguments are correct then evolution can be shown to be false... thus testable.

And even aharvey said it is a scientific theory which to me means it is still only a theory.
something is considered a scientific theory AFTER it accounts for facts. I mean we still call it quantum theory despite it being one of the most validated theories in science.

So just for ease on my part I will go back to calling evolution a theory because even evolutionary scientists haven't been able to take it beyond the theory stage.
that is false. the mechanisms of evolution can be tested. the more fossils we find the better it supports evolution as a historical explanation.

I suggest you hit the books/journals
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,

Not sure what you were alluding to with the "completely different thing"
Then look at this link ---> This is a link.*







*Four-winged dinosaurs from China. You were accusing Nineveh's post about being about an A'raptor when that wasn't what she was posting about at all.


And another opinion about evolution:

A professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Dalhousie University (Canada), W. Ford Doolittle is one of the world’s leading molecular evolutionists. In these three related articles (the Scientific American piece is aimed at a general audience), Doolittle argues that recent discoveries in molecular biology have begun to fracture the root of Darwin’s single Tree of Life. “Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life,” he argues (p. 356 of the Current Opinion article), “than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.” Doolittle contends that biology must rethink Darwin’s single Tree:

Some biologists find these notions confusing and discouraging. It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life. But in fact, our science is working as it should. An attractive hypothesis or model (the single tree) suggested experiments, in this case the collection of gene sequences and their analysis with the methods of molecular phylogeny. The data show the model to be too simple. Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot yet guess, are called for. (p. 95, Scientific American article)



And that comes from this link ----> Link
 

Stratnerd

New member
AS,

This is a link.*

ya, I got it... I just didn't know what part of the post you want to say something about or if you want me to comment at all.

You were accusing Nineveh's post about being about an A'raptor when that wasn't what she was posting about at all.
I believe she was saying that since A'raptor was a hoax then there's no evidence for dino-bird relatedness (I wonder if she'll send me the $50).

As for Doolittle's work, it isn't surprising and I would even say expected. If bacteria can trade around genes today I don't see why it wouldn't have been different in the past. In fact, I suspect that organisms were much more into genetic "free trade" in the past.

Does it really pose a problem for evolution? Not really. If you want to reconstruct a nice neat picture of history then sure but is it troubling for evolution as a whole? Surely not. No evidence of poofing and magic yet.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,



ya, I got it... I just didn't know what part of the post you want to say something about or if you want me to comment at all.

I believe she was saying that since A'raptor was a hoax then there's no evidence for dino-bird relatedness (I wonder if she'll send me the $50).
It was about a peer review on a four-winged dinosaur, not the A'raptor. The peer review seems to disagree about that one being a missing link also. They seem to think that it probably glided and didn't fly.
As for Doolittle's work, it isn't surprising and I would even say expected. If bacteria can trade around genes today I don't see why it wouldn't have been different in the past. In fact, I suspect that organisms were much more into genetic "free trade" in the past.
A professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Dalhousie University (Canada), W. Ford Doolittle, one of the world’s leading molecular evolutionists, seems to disagree with you.
Does it really pose a problem for evolution? Not really. If you want to reconstruct a nice neat picture of history then sure but is it troubling for evolution as a whole? Surely not. No evidence of poofing and magic yet.

From Dr. Doolittle:
“Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life,” he argues , “than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.”
 
Top