(no subject)

[theweaselking]

New Poll: 51% of Americans say that 51% of Americans are functionally illiterate and mindnumbingly ignorant.

On the same topic, from here, "Virtually every American adult has had high school biology, and in high school biology they were taught as a fact that human beings evolved from simple life forms according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, [. . .] This [poll] must make high school biology teachers really depressed. Duh, I eat poop!"

Comments

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I love how Dembski (which I keep reading as Dumbski, can't imagine why) points to "the beauty and extravagance of creation" as proof of a creator.

Clearly, the ugly and efficient parts are the devil's handiwork.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Why does it look like God is trying to pick Darwin's nose in that graphic?

-- Steve so wants to photoshop a chimpanzee into that very same pose... then again, that was done better when touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

At least the pair of polls shows that people have gotten smarter in the last year, eh?

[semi-sweet.livejournal.com]

My high school taught evolution, creation, and some other theories as just that - theories, not facts - to explain the beginning of life. I'm sure there are other high schools that do the same. It seems kind of ridiculous to teach evolution as a fact, even if it's a well supported theory, it's just that - a theory.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

well, everything in science is a theory. it is even refered to as "The Theory of Evolution" in the text books i remember. In science, "Fact" is simply a theory that has enough evidence and cannot be conclusively disproven. When we talk about "facts" in science, we need to keep aware of this, or else all is lost in semantics.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Actually, there is evolution, the fact, which is that allele frequency in animals change over time, and then there's the theory of evolution, which does its best to explain why that happens. Abiogensis is a different theory than the theory of evolution, which doesn't directly deal with the origins of life, just what life-forms do once they exist.
If creationism isn't falsifiable (which as far as I know, it isn't), then it isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word and shouldn't be taught as such. It is, at best, a theo-philosophical thesis.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

All science is a theory. that's the idea behind science. Science takes the best theory and runs with it. And as soon as someone provides real scientific evidence for a better of different theory it will gladly accept that.

Creationists seem to be saying that science is some unmoving onolith. Not true. Religion is hte unmoving monolith who won't change their mind in light of actual facts. Science will gladly change it's opinion if new facts are presented. They just haven't been, so it's irresponsible to teach such "alternative" theories in a science classroom for the same reason that it's irresponsible to teach that the earth is flat. Not because it's not a real theory that some peope have, but because there's not only no evidence to back it up but evidence to the contrary.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It seems kind of ridiculous to teach evolution as a fact, even if it's a well supported theory, it's just that - a theory.

You are a victim of the propaganda, and you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. The phrase "just a theory" is entirely misleading.

Let's break this down:

The definition of the word "theory" in science is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"

The Theory Of Evolution, which describes how and why living creatures change, is a scientific theory. It is, in fact *the* scientific theory, one that makes more predictions that can be tested and has borne up under more scrutiny (pass with flying colours, in fact) than any other. There is more evidence to support natural selection than there is to support quantum mechanics, gravity, or any other scientific theory that you can name. All of this evidence is easily available, supported, and reproducible in a lab.

Creationism is *not* a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis. This hypothesis makes no predictions, so it's not useful for science, and it makes no predictions, so it can't be investigated. Most importantly, it is absolutely *not* "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses", since it cannot be substantiated, incorporates no verifiable facts, and cannot be tested.

"Intelligent Design" is creationism. Google "wedge strategy".

Now, let's address the FACTS. The FACT of evolution has nothing to do with the why and the how of evolution, it has to do with the indisputable FACT that organisms have generations, that the generations are not identical, and that mutation over time introduces new traits, refines and discards old traits and eventually causes speciation.

Maybe what you're looking for is "proof". SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN PROOF. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html) Nothing in the real world does. "Proof" is only possible in artificial realms, like mathematics.


So, you're right, "evolution is just a theory". It's a ridiculously well-supported theory whose precepts are demonstrable in a lab and that fits all the evidence so far perfectly. Using this theory, millions of predictions ("If evolution is true, given fact A we should find X by looking at Y") have been made and proven to match the theory. It's "just a theory" - and using that phrase shows that you're phenomenally ignorant about the writing, the evidence, and even the meaning of the word "theory".

But, hey, I feel generous. Take your best shot, show me *anything* that you think is a good argument against evolution, in favour of creation, or both, and I'll happily address it for you. While you're at it, look at the facts, and note that pro-creation arguments and websites are always, invariably, verifiably intellectually dishonest. *They cannot make points by addressing the facts or by addressing what anyone actually says*. They never do.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

In science, "Fact" is simply a theory that has enough evidence and cannot be conclusively disproven.

No. Fact and theory are not related in that way.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

what even you want to call and elate it on a technical term, that is basically how it works out from a layman's perspective.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

No, the facts are the (observable) evidence, the theory is devised to fit/explain the facts.
e.g.:
Fact - if you drop an apple, it falls to the ground with an observable, repeatable, and measurable acceleration of 9.8m/s².
Theory - gravity, the force of attraction between all matter, is causing the apple to fall to the surface of the earth.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

You missed the obligatory "Duh, we eat poop".

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

i'm talking from a layman's perspective about science and paradigm shifts...

it was a "fact" that we were in a Geo-centric universe, until we finally got enough evidence and accepted Copernicus and Galileo that this solar system is Helio-centric... then that was considered "fact."

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Which is an entirely acceptable opinion OUTSIDE of a science class. INSIDE a science class I expect the term to be used correctly, just as I'd expect the term "drive shaft" to be used correctly in an auto-shop class.

If an auto teacher used "drive shaft" to refer to an axle, I'd get just as honked off as I do at a science teacher using "theory" to mean "guess".

-- Steve thinks that scientists are fussy with their terminology, sure, but nowhere near as fussy as lawyers.

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the assumption that "virtually every American adult has had high school biology". Biology isn't a required course for a high school degree in many states. In New York, for example, you only need one science credit for a diploma, so many students don't go beyond Earth Science.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

But Journal is outside a scientific class. I'm not trying to explain the definition of theory in contrast to fact, just to give a layman's point of view of what happens... and how it relates to what the creationists are saying.

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected.

this was the requirement when I was in high school in mumblemumble87mumblemumble. They increased it for students entering the 9th grade in 1985 to two credits, then increased it again to three credits in 2001.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Did not. You can't prove anything.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

i'm talking from a layman's perspective about science and paradigm shifts...

It's not my fault laymen are getting this wrong, but just because that's what they believe is a fact does not make it so. And yes, I do my best to explain the difference when confronted with it. In my experience, the main problem with trying to explain it is that the layman doesn't want to hear all the "complicated science stuff", and they tend to turn their brain off before it starts to do something strange, like think (not including you, here, you appear to know the difference and to be playing a type of devil's advocate).

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but semi_sweet was talking about how high schools taught evolution; if it's being taught as "just a theory", then it's not being taught properly... which would explain the poll results as "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

-- Steve's wondering if it's too late to start digging a bunker.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

well, i'm sort of in between. i kind of have an understanding of the scientific, but i'm not too comfortable trying to express that definition to others...

either way. even if people are lazt, i think it's important to try and explain things to people in ways they can understand. Of course, there are limits of how much you can dumb something down, but i think you at least need to try. if you listen to the arguments of the right, one of their big ones is against leftist/intelectual ellitism. true or not, that is the perception and i think we need to do our best to step down and dispell that type of propoganda.

i don't really think i'm playing devil's advocate. i just want to try and find a common meeting ground .)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Speaking as an arts student, and definitely not someone with a strong sicence background:

You hang out with ignorant laymen, or I hang out with educated ones. Pick.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I was noticing that. Yay, education...

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

this is where the semantics start breaking down. You have the verifiable and observable fact that things evolve and the "Theory of Evolution," which is more in dealign with the origin of species. i'm just trying to do my best to point out these key differences (and apparently doing a really bad job of it)

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

by laymen, i mean less educated, so just by saying you hang out with educated ones, they don't count with what i'm trying to say. i actually hang out with people from all walks of life and intellegence levels. that is why i think it's critical that we all start on the same page before we start debating that a passage means.
Heck.. i'm a have a BA in history. i'm defiantely NOT qualified to get into the details of it. I gave up all science after the 1xx level...