Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[pek1]

theory (n.) - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

ID advocates try to play the 'evolution is just a theory' game, but the thing is, theories have to be proven through repeated testing to be theories. Otherwise, they're just hypotheses, guesses if you will. Evolution has many years of repeated testing, all of which has confirmed what we know: Evolution occurs, is real and is predictable.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is a guess. No one has ever devised an experiment by which to test the validity of the intelligent design hypothesis. As a result of this, ID is not a theory, it is a guess. If someone did devise such an experiment, implementing controls and allowing other people to repeat the experiment, the scientific community would be forced to accept ID as real. Scientists do not see ID as invalid because they're opposed to religion, they see ID as invalid because it has no scientific credibility whatsoever.



Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Theories are generally accepted as fact because repeated testing has confirmed them. Would you say gravity is a hypothesis? See above.



There are no positives and negatives in theory. Theory is not a matter of whether or not a person agrees or disagrees. If they disagree with theory in a hard science like biology, they are wrong. Even in soft sciences, like economics, complete refutation of theory is not noble or wise, it is incorrect unless you can present real evidence and experimentation to the contrary, in which case your experimentation will be factored into updated versions of theory. It is very rare, however, for a theory to actually be completely disproven, as typically new information and technology works to fine-tune existing theory rather than disprove it. Newton did not (at least initially) observe how fast objects fall, only that they did. Pythogoras did not observe the exact ratio of A, B and C in right triangles, but he did observe that there was a relation. Later scientists, with advancing technology and knowledge, were able to fine-tune these theories to a much more precise degree.



My personal opinion isn't listed. I think that science should be kept to science classes and religion should be kept to religion classes. If ID someday becomes a scientific idea, it should be included in science classes. But at this point in time, it is not a scientific idea and should not be included in science classes. Evolution is a scientific theory, and thus including it in biology curricula is simple logic.

I do think, however, that public schools should have religion classes which cover topics such as ID and creationism. Whether or not these classes should be mandatory, however, is contingent on the course structure.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory

A hypothesis, if you read it, is weaker than a theory is. Hence, evolution is a hypothesis.

 

[Endymion]

Do you like kryptonite? Care to be a 'reverse' Johnny Appleseed and eat up all the kryptonite gunk all over terra firma?

If you can do it and with my super speed powers, we could get rid of the earth of this scourge. Oh, just a friendly note; by the time you're ready to 'excrete' your intestinal possessions, be sure to do so in a lead-lined Port-O-Let strategically positioned over the waters above the Marinas Trench. And no, I will not be waiting outside.

Sincerely,
Your New Best Friend,
Superman!

Kryptonite? How delish! I savored some the other day with the most fantastic Spaghetti allo Scoglio. Mmm.

Your plan sounds brilliant! Let us instead export all Kryptonite to the Valles Marineris trench on Mars. When people get a sight of something shiny and green on Mars, it might stimulate solar system exploration!

 

[Endymion]

For you Zelda fans out there, in Hyrule and Termina Endymionius Megalomaniacus roughly translates to Darunius Goronocus. True story.

I miss Princess Ruto.

 

[me_punctured]

Oh, just a friendly note; by the time you're ready to 'excrete' your intestinal possessions, be sure to do so in a lead-lined Port-O-Let strategically positioned over the waters above the Marinas Trench.

That would explain why Endymion runs into unimaginable problems every time he accompanies his date to five-star restaurants.

I rest my case about your hygiene habits.

 

[me_punctured]

I miss Princess Ruto.

Princess Ruto will always believe that she and Link are destined to be together.

 

[Endymion]

Princess Ruto will always believe that she and Link are destined to be together.

I think Princess Ruto should replace Randle El for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

[ayala920]

I think Princess Ruto should replace Randle El for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

I think the entire team should be replaced.

No, scratch that. Let's instead get rid of the Denver Broncos. Don't even replace them, just nix the entire team.

 

[me_punctured]

I think the entire team should be replaced.

No, scratch that. Let's instead get rid of the Denver Broncos. Don't even replace them, just nix the entire team.

You never accepted the fact that the Denver Broncos lost to Pittsburgh Steelers, did you?

 

[Endymion]

Oh, the two of you are just pissy because your teams didn't even make it that far.

 

[ayala920]

Oh, the two of you are just pissy because your teams didn't even make it that far.

In Chicago we aim for consistency, and I'd say we do a damn good job at it. This is the pattern: Start out well. Falter mid-season, but make a big come back. Do awesome the whole season to get into the (SuperBowl, World Series, whatever). Then, as soon as it comes down to the wire and things start to really count, screw up horribly.

I think we deserve an A+.

 

[web730]

Hey, it's time to stop hijacking this thread, ok. Thanks.

 

[MorriganTait]

I so love how this thread has evolved into an entirely different life form now.

 

[web730]

I so love how this thread has evolved into an entirely different life form now.

HA HA .. that's hilarious.

 

[Teresh]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory

A hypothesis, if you read it, is weaker than a theory is. Hence, evolution is a hypothesis.

Um, no. Completely, utterly, unquestionably incorrect. Your statement is *wrong*. You can't say it's a hypothesis simply because you don't think it's right. It is a theory (a fact, to use Morrigan's terms), regardless of whether or not you are happy about it. I don't care whether or not you like that fact. If you can't accept it, you lack the ability to think intelligently (or, worse, you have the ability and choose not to), and that's a different problem entirely.

 

[Boult]

here's my definition from my built in Dictionary in my mac os x (New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition and Oxford American Writers Thesaurus)

Dictionary
hypothesis |h??pä??sis|
noun ( pl. -ses |-?s?z|)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation : professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis.
• Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek hupothesis ‘foundation,’ from hupo ‘under’ + thesis ‘placing.’

Thesaurus
hypothesis
noun
his 'steady state' hypothesis of the origin of the universe theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; notion, concept, idea, possibility.

Dictionary
hypothesis testing
noun Statistics
the theory, methods, and practice of testing a hypothesis by comparing it with the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is only rejected if its probability falls below a predetermined significance level, in which case the hypothesis being tested is said to have that level of significance.

And via software called OmniDictionary which check over 20 online dictionary and gives me the results;

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

Hypothesis \Hy*poth"e*sis\, n.; pl. Hypotheses. [NL., fr. Gr.
? foundation, supposition, fr. ? to place under, ? under + ?
to put. See Hypo-, Thesis.]
1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is
supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a
conclusion or inference for proof of the point in
question; something not proved, but assumed for the
purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an
occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an
overdue steamer.
[1913 Webster]

An hypothesis being a mere supposition, there are no
other limits to hypotheses than those of the human
imagination. --J. S. Mill.
[1913 Webster]

2. (Natural Science) A tentative theory or supposition
provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to
guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently
called a working hypothesis.

Syn: Supposition; assumption. See Theory.
[1913 Webster]

Nebular hypothesis. See under Nebular. Hypothetic

-----------------

From WordNet (r) 2.0:

hypothesis
n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that
is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain
facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives
experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he
proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted
in chemical practices" [syn: possibility, theory]
3: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
[syn: guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal,
speculation]
[also: hypotheses (pl)]

-----------------

From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0:

48 Moby Thesaurus words for "hypothesis":
a priori principle, affirmation, apriorism, assertion,
assumed position, assumption, axiom, basis,
categorical proposition, conjecture, data, first principles,
foundation, ground, guesswork, hypothesis ad hoc, inference, lemma,
major premise, minor premise, philosopheme,
philosophical proposition, position, postulate, postulation,
postulatum, premise, premiss, presumption, presupposal,
presupposition, proposition, propositional function,
set of postulates, speculation, statement, sumption, supposal,
supposing, supposition, surmise, theorem, theory, thesis,
truth table, truth-function, truth-value, working hypothesis

There you go... Cheers!!

 

[MorriganTait]

MORE ON THE SCIENTIFIC TERMS: FACT, THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS

Paul R. Ehrlich in Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect, p. 74.
Scientific hypotheses are, in one way or another, tested against nature -- the "real world" that all scientists conventionally agree is "out there."1 Only when hypotheses are sufficiently tested and bind together information from relatively diverse areas that previously had not been connected do they properly become theories. But that is the opposite of the popular understanding of the term; it's scientific meaning is much closer to that of the word fact in common parlance.2 Theories embody the highest level of certainty for comprehensive ideas in science. Thus, when someone claims that evolution is "only a theory," it's roughly equivalent to saying that the proposition that the Earth circles the sun rather than vice versa is "only a theory." Evolution is, in fact, a very useful theory.

Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Web, you have been repeatedly provided references to the science of evolution, yet you choose to debate it without understanding the science to begin with. I am quite certain you simply lack exposure to the scientific community, as many average people do, but I do hope that you take the time to carefully read the references you have been provided - by me, teresh, and many others, so that at the very least, when you want to debate the topic, you are armed with the correct information. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but you don't even know what you're disagreeing with, and that is evident in many posts you have made on the subject - in this thread, and others. I am sorry to be so blunt about it, because I do admire your willingness to engage in the discussion, but it had to be said.

 

[pek1]

Um, no. Completely, utterly, unquestionably incorrect. Your statement is *wrong*. You can't say it's a hypothesis simply because you don't think it's right. It is a theory (a fact, to use Morrigan's terms), regardless of whether or not you are happy about it. I don't care whether or not you like that fact. If you can't accept it, you lack the ability to think intelligently (or, worse, you have the ability and choose not to), and that's a different problem entirely.

Read the other definitions, Morrigan Tait. A theory needed to be proven somewhat true by testing, of which evolution hasn't even been tested and yet it's taught as a scientific fact. So, what are the evolutionists afraid of? Yep, you got that right...people like me just shot holes through their beliefs and they don't like it, neither can they prove anything. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken did.

 

[Beowulf]

Yep, you got that right...people like me just shot holes through their beliefs and they don't like it, neither can they prove anything. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken did.

Nawww, you shot yourself in the foot as usual. It is apparent that you haven't even bothered to read any definitions, just scream personal assertions.

 

[MorriganTait]

Read the other definitions, Morrigan Tait. A theory needed to be proven somewhat true by testing, of which evolution hasn't even been tested and yet it's taught as a scientific fact. So, what are the evolutionists afraid of? Yep, you got that right...people like me just shot holes through their beliefs and they don't like it, neither can they prove anything. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken did.

Pek1, before you tell us that evolution is neither a fact, nor a theory, I suggest you become better versed in the actual science of evolution. Not only have many biological elements of evolution been "tested", we have in our own lifetime observed evolution to take place. I am not going to continue to repost the same scientific references over and over and over until you actually get of your toukis and read them. Please take the time to go back to posts I have made in this thread and several other related threads, and read up on the topic. Otherwise, this is a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed, and it's not worth my time.

 

[Teresh]

Read the other definitions, Morrigan Tait. A theory needed to be proven somewhat true by testing, of which evolution hasn't even been tested and yet it's taught as a scientific fact. So, what are the evolutionists afraid of? Yep, you got that right...people like me just shot holes through their beliefs and they don't like it, neither can they prove anything. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken did.

It's taught as fact because it *has* been proven entirely true by testing... There's more experimental evidence that evolution occurs than there is evidence that the theory of quantum physics is correct, but you probably aren't going to be stating that's wrong without a reason, are you?

You shot yourself in the foot by ignoring facts. You're being told that you have to prove things like intelligent design or creationism because the literal versions of both conflict with the theory of evolution, which *has* been proven. With very few exceptions (the complete refutation of the central dogma of cell microbiology by the discovery of retroviruses is the only one I can think of), new discoveries and technology breakthroughs serve to fine-tune existing theory.

Saying "I have a theory" regarding a particular topic (in this case, the origin of life on earth) doesn't mean anything if you don't have experimentation to back it up. Otherwise, it's not a theory, it's a guess. The theory of evolution is very widely supported because it has that experimentation to back it up, not because people ideolize Darwin or don't believe in God. It took Jesus magic tricks (and I mean this in an ambiguous sense, could be Act of God or sleight of hand) to win over most of his followers. That was evidence to them. People are naturally conservative; they will resist change. If you want people to change and listen to you and what you believe, you need a compelling reason. In science, that compelling reason is experimentation results and the procedures so that it can be reproduced by other people.


And under evolution, the egg would have come first, since whatever preceded the current species of chicken (we can call it a pre-chicken) laid the first chicken egg.