Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A theory
Topic Started: Oct 27 2009, 12:57 AM (1,197 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
After a review of Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth in the NY Times Book Review sections a couple weeks back, some of the letters concerned themselves with the concept of a scientific theory. I found this one to be particularly interesting.

Quote:
 
To the Editor:

In his review of “The Greatest Show on Earth,” Nicholas Wade charges that Richard Dawkins is guilty of a philosophical error. According to Wade, philosophers of science divide scientific propositions into three types — facts, laws and theories — and, contrary to Dawkins’s assertions, evolution, which is plainly a systematic theory, cannot count as a fact. However, contemporary philosophy of science offers a vastly more intricate vocabulary for thinking about the sciences than that presupposed in Wade’s oversimplified taxonomy and in his confused remarks about “absolute truth.” Although philosophers may quarrel with aspects of Dawkins’s arguments on a range of issues, he has a far firmer and more subtle understanding of the philosophical issues than that manifested in Wade’s review.

The crucial point is that, as Dawkins appreciates, the distinction between theory and fact, in philosophical discussions as in everyday speech, can be drawn in two quite distinct ways. On the one hand, theories are conceived as general systems for explanation and prediction, while facts are specific reports about local events and processes. On the other hand, “theory” is used to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt, whereas “fact” suggests something so amply confirmed by the evidence that it may be accepted without debate.

Opponents of evolution slide from supposing that evolution is a theory, in the first sense, to concluding that it is (only) a theory, in the second. Any such inference is fallacious, in that many systematic approaches to domains of natural phenomena — like the understanding of chemical reactions in terms of atoms and molecules, and the study of heredity in terms of nucleic acids — are so well supported that they count as facts (in the second sense). Many scientists and philosophers who have written about evolution have pointed out that the contemporary theory that descends from Darwin has the same status — it, too, should count as a “fact.” Dawkins is entirely justified in following them.

PHILIP KITCHER
New York
The writer is the John Dewey professor of philosophy at Columbia University and a former editor in chief of Philosophy of Science, the journal of the Philosophy of Science Association.

As soon as you hear someone say evolution is "only a theory," that's a good sign the speaker has no idea what a scientific theory actually is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I think what you have NG is some well meaning and confused folks that become stuck in a theory that does not match the evidence at hand. The more we learn the more complex God becomes..in my opinion. And those who become stuck need to understand that they are never going to comprehend the entirety of God or His works.

I find science and discovery exciting intriguing, and wish at times I had more science in my education experience. I was drawn in another direction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
The problem, Mike, is twofold:

1. Creationism is not a theory at all, so there is only one valid theory to account for life on the planet as we see it.

2. There is no evidence supporting creationism.

God and his works is irrelevant in all this. Every religion, every god has a creation myth. You've just selected one of the thousands of such as being more meaningful, to you, than the others.

Unless, of course, you'd like to enter some objective evidence showing your particular creation myth is more valid than any of the others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
There is evidence of creationism NG, just not measurable by today's instruments. So I disagree with your summation. And at present many consider evolution a theory as it has holes in it as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
If there "is evidence," but it can't be measured, how can it possibly be evidence?

Evidence is factual data. Paper burns at 451 f., ice melts at 32 f, the sun is 93 million miles away, DNA does not perfectly transmit genetic material from generation to generation. Facts that are used as evidence to support scientific theories.

So, what do you think the biggest "hole" in evolution might be?

Keeping in mind that the scientific definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequency of a gene over time."

Start poking.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
In evolution, what I see is God continually creating the world we live in. Not random creation but creation with a purpose that only He knows.

I believe that there will be and are cases in evolution study that will never add up to the scientists, as God moves in a direction away from what they would consider by theory, to be what should be the next evolved phase.

There will always be missing links, because God chose not to continue down that particular path, for reasons that only he will ever know.

The experiences I have had with God are not measurable in a scientific sense, but also don't need to be. Scientists might suggest that creationism is an unproven theory, but from my believe and experience it is the answer they continue to search for. Evolution is but one way God expresses his will upon the created world.

And I realize that I'll never win a scientific debate surrounding this subject... but I don't have to either. While scientists continue to being forth more of God's creation, I get to enjoy the findings in awe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Didn't think so.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I didn't think you would. Free agency is alive and well...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fire lord
Member Avatar
Newbie
[ * ]
evolution is a theory because it does not have enough facts to back it up

in my Opinion the Concept is correct but the overall theory is not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
fire lord
Sep 10 2010, 08:27 AM
evolution is a theory because it does not have enough facts to back it up

in my Opinion the Concept is correct but the overall theory is not.
Yet another person who has no idea of what a scientific theory is.

Your opinion is worthless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis