Jump to content

What's with the ads?


Photo

s/o HOW do you teach a theory as FACT?

creationism evolution

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:55 PM

Wouldn't one need to differentiate between micro evolution and macro evolution or are we lumping it all in there together?

just curious

#2 patchfire

patchfire

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1860 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:12 PM

Because there is a difference between theory as it is used in common parlance and theory as it is used as a scientific term.

#3 redsquirrel

redsquirrel

    The Stuff of Legends

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7186 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:19 PM

:iagree:

That is how I approach it. Something like the germ theory of illness is a good place to start.

#4 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:26 PM

Because there is a difference between theory as it is used in common parlance and theory as it is used as a scientific term.


:iagree:Gravity is also a theory. lol As far as differentiating between micro and macro...well, if your religious preferences dictate that, then I guess that's what you'll do. I don't differentiate. Organisms evolve. Period. (That's how I teach it, I mean.)

Anyway, do you really care about the answer to this question, because it seems rather rhetorical and somewhat of an attack on people who accept evolution as a fact. It's kind of like me posting, "HOW do you teach religion as a FACT?" Rather inflammatory, wouldn't you say?

Edited by Snowfall, 08 February 2011 - 05:31 PM.


#5 LittleIzumi

LittleIzumi

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6276 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:30 PM

Gravity is also a theory.


:iagree:That's what I was coming to post. It's up to every parent to teach which theories they believe in, but "theory" doesn't reference a lack of evidence or an amount of doubt. We're teaching gravity in BFSU right now, in fact ;).

#6 melmichigan

melmichigan

    sitting on "The Fence"

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4492 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:32 PM

Because there is a difference between theory as it is used in common parlance and theory as it is used as a scientific term.


:iagree: This were confusion commonly resides.

#7 Jumping In Puddles

Jumping In Puddles

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2899 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:37 PM

I lump them together. Organisms evolve.

I also teach my kids what a scientific theory is. I know many adults who don't know that a Scientific Theory is different than what is meant by theory in common use! :eek:

#8 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:38 PM

I understand the need to clarify the terminology.

I also see that now evolution as a whole is considered to be both fact and theory by some.

Evolutionists believe that given enough time macro is possible. Therefore in accepting the truth/ reality of microevolution, they "see" and NEED the billions of years to make it (macro) work.

I get it. You can readily promote theory as fact when the meaning of "theory" has become ambiguous.


This helps me to understand that creationists and evolutionists are not even speaking the same language. It's not simply that they do not agree.

Why continue the dialogue?

#9 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:39 PM

not why should I continue THIS dialogue but the continual back & forth between the two opposing view points.

wanted to clarify

#10 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:43 PM

The meaning of "theory" has only become ambiguous to people who don't understand the scientific process. It's not ambiguous. Saying it is doesn't make it so. It's not that evolutionists are speaking a different language. It's that non-scientists frequently misunderstand scientific terminology. That's it.

From http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm :

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.



Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."



In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.


Emphasis mine. It's laypeople who are misusing the term. There is no ambiguity.

#11 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:45 PM

:iagree:Gravity is also a theory. lol As far as differentiating between micro and macro...well, if your religious preferences dictate that, then I guess that's what you'll do. I don't differentiate. Organisms evolve. Period. (That's how I teach it, I mean.)

Anyway, do you really care about the answer to this question, because it seems rather rhetorical and somewhat of an attack on people who accept evolution as a fact. It's kind of like me posting, "HOW do you teach religion as a FACT?" Rather inflammatory, wouldn't you say?


You misinterpret the intention of my post.

I ask questions because I want answers. I want to clearly understand both sides of the argument. It wasn't an attack.

#12 Where's Toto?

Where's Toto?

    Eclectically Us-Schooling

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4431 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:46 PM

I understand the need to clarify the terminology.

I also see that now evolution as a whole is considered to be both fact and theory by some.

Evolutionists believe that given enough time macro is possible. Therefore in accepting the truth/ reality of microevolution, they "see" and NEED the billions of years to make it (macro) work.

I get it. You can readily promote theory as fact when the meaning of "theory" has become ambiguous.


This helps me to understand that creationists and evolutionists are not even speaking the same language. It's not simply that they do not agree.

Why continue the dialogue?


Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that observation of microevolution has lead to scientists deciding that in order to say macroevolution is possible they must also say the earth is old? I think the age of the earth and evolution are supported by different disciplines of science (geology, plate tectonics, astronomy versus biology and genetics) although there is obviously some cross-over.

#13 regentrude

regentrude

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14198 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:46 PM

I get it. You can readily promote theory as fact when the meaning of "theory" has become ambiguous.


The meaning of scientific theory is not ambiguous.
A scientific theory is a synthesis of information that contains well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. The hypotheses are tested against observations. A theory can not be proven, but it can be found to be in agreement with observation and predictions.
Scientific theories also evolve, become refined, sometimes become replaced.

Gravity is a theory. It explains why objects fall; it can be used to predict very accurately the trajectory of a falling or thrown object; it is in agreement with observation. It is, however, a THEORY. One that is generally accepted not only in scientific circles but in the general public as well.

As for how you teach it:
you teach how science works. Experiments and observations are explained by a theory. The theory makes predictions or explains phenomena yet unexplained. You perform experiments and observations to test whether the results are as predicted/explained by your theory. If the results agree, repeatedly, you can accept the theory (for now, for a specific set of systems). You have not proved that this is the correct theory. You have merely delivered an explanation that has predictive power, the key element of science.
Further results, maybe due to better technological possibilities, may make observations possible that will cause the theory to change. One nice example : the observations of the skies before the telescope were in agreement with the - wrong- geocentric theory. The evidence delivered by the telescope caused a shift to the - now commonly accepted - heliocentric theory.

Edited by regentrude, 08 February 2011 - 05:52 PM.


#14 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:47 PM

The meaning of "theory" has only become ambiguous to people who don't understand the scientific process. It's not ambiguous. Saying it is doesn't make it so. It's not that evolutionists are speaking a different language. It's that non-scientists frequently misunderstand scientific terminology. That's it.

From http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm :



Emphasis mine. It's laypeople who are misusing the term. There is no ambiguity.



thank you for explaining this

#15 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:47 PM

Ahahaha! I edited because I didn't want to sound snotty and I knew I did, but then I got quoted. Well, see below. And sorry I sounded snotty. lol

Edited by Snowfall, 08 February 2011 - 05:50 PM.


#16 Where's Toto?

Where's Toto?

    Eclectically Us-Schooling

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4431 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:49 PM

And, no to the bolded part. "Evolutionists" do not "see" billions of years because they believe they're necessary in order for evolution to have occurred. You're working backwards there. They "see" billions of years because the overhwhelming amount of scientific analysis shows it to be true, not because they want it to be true. :glare:


:iagree: What I was trying to say but you said it much better.

#17 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:54 PM

The meaning of scientific theory is not ambiguous.
A scientific theory is a synthesis of information that contains well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. The hypotheses are tested against observations. A theory can not be proven, but it can be found to be in agreement with observation and predictions.
Scientific theories also evolve, become refined, sometimes become replaced.

Gravity is a theory. It explains why objects fall; it can be used to predict very accurately the trajectory of a falling or thrown object; it is in agreement with observation. It is, however, a THEORY. One that is generally accepted not only in scientific circles but in the general public as well.



Got it!

Does the MAIN issue for Creationists vs. Evolutionists revolve around creation and life forms/ development, etc...? Usually the argument surrounds creation which is not repeatable or can not be observed and the development of species from one to another.

I really appreciate the feedback.

#18 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:58 PM

The answer to your last question will vary with the individual. There are creationists who believe in evolution and evolutionists who believe in creation. :) I do believe in evolution and am an agnostic, so I have no idea about whether some higher power set the whole thing in motion or not. I definitely don't believe in the Biblical account of creation, but I can see how there could be a god who had something to do with the beginnings of the universe. I can also see how maybe there couldn't be. Either way, I don't honestly believe human beings can wrap our little minds around the whole affair. It's difficult to believe we came from nothing, and it's difficult to believe in a god who came from nothing, so either is equally unbelievable to me. lol

#19 regentrude

regentrude

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14198 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:58 PM

Got it!

Does the MAIN issue for Creationists vs. Evolutionists revolve around creation and life forms/ development, etc...? Usually the argument surrounds creation which is not repeatable or can not be observed and the development of species from one to another.


As far as I understand the creationist viewpoint, one main issue is: have all species been created from the beginning "as is" (creationist) or are species evolving over large time frames due to spontaneous mutations and natural selection (evolutionist).
One reason why this is such a huge issue is the position of man : has man been created specially in the image of God - or is man just another animal that has evolved, so nothing really special.

It is clear that, if somebody believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is impossible for evolution to have taken place because the time frames are too short.
In order to even investigate whether evolution would have been possible, it is necessary to accept the fact that the Earth is old.

#20 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:59 PM

The meaning of scientific theory is not ambiguous.
A scientific theory is a synthesis of information that contains well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. The hypotheses are tested against observations. A theory can not be proven, but it can be found to be in agreement with observation and predictions.
Scientific theories also evolve, become refined, sometimes become replaced.

Gravity is a theory. It explains why objects fall; it can be used to predict very accurately the trajectory of a falling or thrown object; it is in agreement with observation. It is, however, a THEORY. One that is generally accepted not only in scientific circles but in the general public as well.

As for how you teach it:
you teach how science works. Experiments and observations are explained by a theory. The theory makes predictions or explains phenomena yet unexplained. You perform experiments and observations to test whether the results are as predicted/explained by your theory. If the results agree, repeatedly, you can accept the theory (for now, for a specific set of systems). You have not proved that this is the correct theory. You have merely delivered an explanation that has predictive power, the key element of science.
Further results, maybe due to better technological possibilities, may make observations possible that will cause the theory to change. One nice example : the observations of the skies before the telescope were in agreement with the - wrong- geocentric theory. The evidence delivered by the telescope caused a shift to the - now commonly accepted - heliocentric theory.



thanks so much

I appreciate the well-articulated response.

#21 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5871 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:02 PM

I understand the need to clarify the terminology.

I also see that now evolution as a whole is considered to be both fact and theory by some.


To further clarify, theories are not facts. They are explanations made up of facts. The terms Fact and Theory are not not opposites, nor are they interchangeable. A fact is a demonstrable piece of information. For example: "A cupcake is missing" or "There are chocolate crumbs behind the couch." Theories are explanations based on facts, such as: "One of my kids must have nipped a cupcake from the cupboard and scarfed it behind the couch." A theory can be supported by further factual evidence, "My son has chocolate breath" or replaced by another related theory when new evidence comes to light, "The dog has chocolate breath."

Barb

#22 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:11 PM

To further clarify, theories are not facts. They are explanations made up of facts. The terms Fact and Theory are not not opposites, nor are they interchangeable. A fact is a demonstrable piece of information. For example: "A cupcake is missing" or "There are chocolate crumbs behind the couch." Theories are explanations based on facts, such as: "One of my kids must have nipped a cupcake from the cupboard and scarfed it behind the couch." A theory can be supported by further factual evidence, "My son has chocolate breath" or replaced by another related theory when new evidence comes to light, "The dog has chocolate breath."

Barb


LOVE IT!!

#23 ChandlerMom

ChandlerMom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:23 PM

The meaning of scientific theory is not ambiguous.
A scientific theory is a synthesis of information that contains well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. The hypotheses are tested against observations. A theory can not be proven, but it can be found to be in agreement with observation and predictions.
Scientific theories also evolve, become refined, sometimes become replaced.

Gravity is a theory. It explains why objects fall; it can be used to predict very accurately the trajectory of a falling or thrown object; it is in agreement with observation. It is, however, a THEORY. One that is generally accepted not only in scientific circles but in the general public as well.

As for how you teach it:
you teach how science works. Experiments and observations are explained by a theory. The theory makes predictions or explains phenomena yet unexplained. You perform experiments and observations to test whether the results are as predicted/explained by your theory. If the results agree, repeatedly, you can accept the theory (for now, for a specific set of systems). You have not proved that this is the correct theory. You have merely delivered an explanation that has predictive power, the key element of science.
Further results, maybe due to better technological possibilities, may make observations possible that will cause the theory to change. One nice example : the observations of the skies before the telescope were in agreement with the - wrong- geocentric theory. The evidence delivered by the telescope caused a shift to the - now commonly accepted - heliocentric theory.


:iagree: Very well put.

I am reading Prothero's book and he starts by reminding us that theories, like evolution, are not "believed" or "not believed, they are accepted or rejected. Articles of faith are beleived. You accept evolution or you don't, you don't "believe in evolution" or not. It really is an important distinction!

Also, theory > sum of facts. People think a fact = truth, but a fact is just a single observation. A theory has to provide testable predictions and a single fact could end the theory. So far, in over 100 years, not a single scientific fact has come to light that contradicts evolution.

Religion often starts at a belief and then explains how the observed fits with that belief. Science does not. Science starts with observations, formulates a question, develops a theory, tests the theory, ad nauseam. By nature it follows the facts/observations where they lead, whether it fits in with the personal beliefs of the scientist or not. If a fact doesn't fit with a theory, the theory needs to adapt or be discarded. No theory is sacred in science.

Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Science has nothing to say about God's existence, nature, or the morality of humans. It is NOT anti-God. But the requirement that theories be predictive and testable means that they cannot contain supernatural causes. It is possible that the earth was created 5,000 years ago such that it APPEARED to have been created 9 billion years ago. But that can never be a scientific theory because I cannot test it. Similarly, the internet could just be a figment of my imagination. I could have come into existence 1 second ago...philosophers have struggled with proof of existence for centuries (ala Descarte). But those can never be part of a scientific theory. If your beliefs cannot work with science, you need to decide where the supernatural supersedes science, maybe chalk it up to the limitation on science to address the supernatural?

There is no macro/micro evolution debate in science -- that's a religious rationalization. And for the record, try not to ask "will science curr X work for Christians" when you mean creationists, not christians. Most christians (catholics, orthodox, many protestants) have no problem with evolution and others, such as fundamentalist muslims are also creationists.

Nuf said (by me). :D

Edited by ChandlerMom, 08 February 2011 - 06:27 PM.


#24 In2why

In2why

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2139 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:31 PM

:iagree: Very well put.

I am reading Prothero's book and he starts by reminding us that theories, like evolution, are not "believed" or "not believed, they are accepted or rejected. Articles of faith are beleived. You accept evolution or you don't, you don't "believe in evolution" or not. It really is an important distinction!

Also, theory > sum of facts. People think a fact = truth, but a fact is just a single observation. A theory has to provide testable predictions and a single fact could end the theory. So far, in over 100 years, not a single scientific fact has come to light that contradicts evolution.

Religion often starts at a belief and then explains how the observed fits with that belief. Science does not. Science starts with observations, formulates a question, develops a theory, tests the theory, ad nauseam. By nature it follows the facts/observations where they lead, whether it fits in with the personal beliefs of the scientist or not. If a fact doesn't fit with a theory, the theory needs to adapt or be discarded. No theory is sacred in science.

Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Science has nothing to say about God's existence, nature, or the morality of humans. It is NOT anti-God. But the requirement that theories be predictive and testable means that they cannot contain supernatural causes. It is possible that the earth was created 5,000 years ago such that it APPEARED to have been created 9 billion years ago. But that can never be a scientific theory because I cannot test it. Similarly, the internet could just be a figment of my imagination. I could have come into existence 1 second ago...philosophers have struggled with proof of existence for centuries (ala Descarte). But those can never be part of a scientific theory. If your beliefs cannot work with science, you need to decide where the supernatural supersedes science, maybe chalk it up to the limitation on science to address the supernatural?

There is no macro/micro evolution debate in science -- that's a religious rationalization. And for the record, try not to ask "will science curr X work for Christians" when you mean creationists, not christians. Most christians (catholics, orthodox, many protestants) have no problem with evolution and others, such as fundamentalist muslims are also creationists.

Nuf said (by me). :D



I am going to print this out. I think this is the clearest understanding I have ever read. I also, as a Christian and Evolutionist stand up and cheer you last sentence.

#25 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5871 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:32 PM

I am reading Prothero's book and he starts by reminding us that theories, like evolution, are not "believed" or "not believed, they are accepted or rejected. Articles of faith are beleived. You accept evolution or you don't, you don't "believe in evolution" or not. It really is an important distinction!

Also, theory > sum of facts. People think a fact = truth, but a fact is just a single observation. A theory has to provide testable predictions and a single fact could end the theory. So far, in over 100 years, not a single scientific fact has come to light that contradicts evolution.

Religion often starts at a belief and then explains how the observed fits with that belief. Science does not. Science starts with observations, formulates a question, develops a theory, tests the theory, ad nauseam. By nature it follows the facts/observations where they lead, whether it fits in with the personal beliefs of the scientist or not. If a fact doesn't fit with a theory, the theory needs to adapt or be discarded. No theory is sacred in science.

Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Science has nothing to say about God's existence, nature, or the morality of humans. It is NOT anti-God. But the requirement that theories be predictive and testable means that they cannot contain supernatural causes. It is possible that the earth was created 5,000 years ago such that it APPEARED to have been created 9 billion years ago. But that can never be a scientific theory because I cannot test it. Similarly, the internet could just be a figment of my imagination. I could have come into existence 1 second ago...philosophers have struggled with proof of existence for centuries (ala Descarte). But those can never be part of a scientific theory. If your beliefs cannot work with science, you need to decide where the supernatural supersedes science, maybe chalk it up to the limitation on science to address the supernatural?

There is no macro/micro evolution debate in science -- that's a religious rationalization. And for the record, try not to ask "will science curr X work for Christians" when you mean creationists, not christians. Most christians (catholics, orthodox, many protestants) have no problem with evolution and others, such as fundamentalist muslims are also creationists.

Nuf said (by me). :D


:iagree: Well done!

Waving Hi from the West Valley :D

Barb

#26 cassiemc

cassiemc

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 244 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:35 PM

:iagree:Gravity is also a theory. lol As far as differentiating between micro and macro...well, if your religious preferences dictate that, then I guess that's what you'll do. I don't differentiate. Organisms evolve. Period. (That's how I teach it, I mean.)

Anyway, do you really care about the answer to this question, because it seems rather rhetorical and somewhat of an attack on people who accept evolution as a fact. It's kind of like me posting, "HOW do you teach religion as a FACT?" Rather inflammatory, wouldn't you say?


Pretty much what I was going to post. Teach your kids what you want and I'll do the same.

#27 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:45 PM

:iagree: Very well put.

I am reading Prothero's book and he starts by reminding us that theories, like evolution, are not "believed" or "not believed, they are accepted or rejected. Articles of faith are beleived. You accept evolution or you don't, you don't "believe in evolution" or not. It really is an important distinction!

Also, theory > sum of facts. People think a fact = truth, but a fact is just a single observation. A theory has to provide testable predictions and a single fact could end the theory. So far, in over 100 years, not a single scientific fact has come to light that contradicts evolution.

Religion often starts at a belief and then explains how the observed fits with that belief. Science does not. Science starts with observations, formulates a question, develops a theory, tests the theory, ad nauseam. By nature it follows the facts/observations where they lead, whether it fits in with the personal beliefs of the scientist or not. If a fact doesn't fit with a theory, the theory needs to adapt or be discarded. No theory is sacred in science.

Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Science has nothing to say about God's existence, nature, or the morality of humans. It is NOT anti-God. But the requirement that theories be predictive and testable means that they cannot contain supernatural causes. It is possible that the earth was created 5,000 years ago such that it APPEARED to have been created 9 billion years ago. But that can never be a scientific theory because I cannot test it. Similarly, the internet could just be a figment of my imagination. I could have come into existence 1 second ago...philosophers have struggled with proof of existence for centuries (ala Descarte). But those can never be part of a scientific theory. If your beliefs cannot work with science, you need to decide where the supernatural supersedes science, maybe chalk it up to the limitation on science to address the supernatural?

There is no macro/micro evolution debate in science -- that's a religious rationalization. And for the record, try not to ask "will science curr X work for Christians" when you mean creationists, not christians. Most christians (catholics, orthodox, many protestants) have no problem with evolution and others, such as fundamentalist muslims are also creationists.

Nuf said (by me). :D




theory> sum of facts

Truth> theory

Science has nothing to do with Truth? just theories, predictions, observations? hypotheses?

Is the real foundational issue what one believes/ accepts as Truth, then?
and what is Truth? and how does science substantiate it? identify it?
:001_huh:

And each person decides what they choose to accept or reject based upon assumptions, presuppositions, observations, interpretation of data...

(off to find this book) :auto:

#28 Karis

Karis

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 567 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:09 PM

BARAMINOLOGY

emerging field of science

different created kinds as opposed to all life forms evolving from one.

Adaptations of species within all Created Kinds

I'm done here.

I'm sure both evolutionists and creationists will see / take what they want from this and go from there.

#29 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5871 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:16 PM

BARAMINOLOGY

emerging field of science


Astrology.

Alchemy.

Phrenology.

#30 smrtmama

smrtmama

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1346 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:42 PM

Wouldn't one need to differentiate between micro evolution and macro evolution or are we lumping it all in there together?

just curious


If I'm teaching my children the scientific definition of "theory," it's really not a problem.

#31 smrtmama

smrtmama

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1346 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:43 PM

Astrology.

Alchemy.

Phrenology.


I love you. :001_wub:

#32 Where's Toto?

Where's Toto?

    Eclectically Us-Schooling

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4431 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:59 PM

Astrology.

Alchemy.

Phrenology.


:thumbup:

#33 NoPlaceLikeHome

NoPlaceLikeHome

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5335 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:14 PM

To me there is no contradiction believing in both creation and evolution. I could never understand the problem of believing in both since they are not mutually exclusive IMHO.

To me the bible was never meant to be a science book at all and was meant to be spiritual and religious in nature. To me, the truth of Genesis is that God created everything. IMHO I don't think the truth of Genesis was meant to be the exact recipe or account for creation so to speak. I don't think it was meant to be taken literally at all. It says figuratively that God created all IMHO.

My 2 cents:)

#34 regentrude

regentrude

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14198 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:52 PM

theory> sum of facts

Truth> theory
Science has nothing to do with Truth? just theories, predictions, observations? hypotheses?
Is the real foundational issue what one believes/ accepts as Truth, then?
and what is Truth? and how does science substantiate it? identify it?


This is a very difficult and deep question with which philosophers have wrestled forever. What is truth, and can man even know it?
Science is not truth. Science works to the best of its ability to uncover truth - but how far along we are, nobody can say.
Remember, the people who proposed the geocentric theory were not idiots or people with an agenda (well, later, yes, with a religious one, but not at first.). They were very hardworking scientists who gathered data, developed elaborate models to explain what they saw, and were able to predict things like eclipses etc very well (better, in fact, than the first renditions of the conceptually more correct heliocentric system, because of the small error of assuming prefect circles as orbits instead of ellipses.)

So, if I as a scientist accept a theory, I don't know about absolute truth: I just follow a code of conduct of scientists, by which evidence is analyzed impartially (and not made to fit a certain preconceived notion) to the best of my abilities. That's all we can do.

#35 nmoira

nmoira

    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis and hypocrisy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15889 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:38 AM

Gravity is also a theory.

And after much careful consideration, we've decided to teach it as "fact." :tongue_smilie:

#36 TracyP

TracyP

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2724 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 09:24 AM

And after much careful consideration, we've decided to teach it as "fact." :tongue_smilie:


I'm literally LOL and my 7 year old is yelling, "did one of those WTM ladies say something silly?" Ahhh, I love this place. Really most of the people I know IRL are unwilling to even discuss the possibility of evolution. I am enjoying this thread and the other very much.

#37 crstarlette

crstarlette

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 09:25 AM

BARAMINOLOGY

emerging field of science

different created kinds as opposed to all life forms evolving from one.

Adaptations of species within all Created Kinds

I'm done here.

I'm sure both evolutionists and creationists will see / take what they want from this and go from there.


http://en.wikipedia....ki/Baraminology

As a part of creation science, baraminology is considered a pseudoscience[2][3][4][5] as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has general scientific acceptance. The taxonomic system widely applied in modern biology is cladistics, which classifies species[6] by the scientific community, based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis.

#38 Gratia271

Gratia271

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3855 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:09 AM

And after much careful consideration, we've decided to teach it as "fact." :tongue_smilie:


:lol::lol:

#39 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:32 PM

Because there is a difference between theory as it is used in common parlance and theory as it is used as a scientific term.


I am sorry if I am being redundant. I can't read all of the replies without dealing with a fit. My son was watching video game reviews on the computer.

We teach the theory of gravity in school "as if it were a fact" because it's constructed upon facts. The Law of Gravity is directly observable. Objects fall. We don't float. Gravity is both a FACT, and a THEORY. The FACT of gravity (sometimes called the LAW of gravity because we have evidence that it occurs even in distant parts of the universe) is the fact that objects are attracted to each other by an amount determined by the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The THEORY of gravity (ToG) is the theory that there is a "force" of gravity that affects all mass, and that this force is the result of a curvature in space-time, or the presence of particles called 'gravitons.' The theory of gravity, however, could be wrong. The Theory of Gravity is man's attempt to describe how gravity operates/functions. It explains how and why of gravity. Every scientific theory is falsifiable.

Science actually teaches that absolute truth is unattainable for the human mind. Theories are not facts, but are the way that we explain the facts. Every scientific theory is falsifiable.

The entire scientific method is based on both the revision of and the attempts to *dis*prove the established work of others.

Edited by Lovedtodeath, 09 February 2011 - 02:11 PM.


#40 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:43 PM

Here is an example from another forum about how evidence can support both the theory of evolution and still be compatible with creation. I am copying and pasting it, two people are posting here, I hope it makes sense:

As I said, the theory of evolution stands without the fossil record and here are some examples of that:

Observed Evolution:

The Lizards of Pod Mcraru:
http://www.physorg.c...s127667797.html

Long Term E.coli evolution experiment:
http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

Dr. John Endler's experiments with guppies:
http://en.wikipedia....iki/John_Endler

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html
http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Speciation

Instead of supporting the theory of evolution, these examples actually support Young Earth Creationism.

Here is why: The Speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt. One evolutionist said, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.’

The Biblical account of history not only accommodates such rapid changes in body form, but actually requires that it would have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect.

QUOTE
Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information.

The Biblical account of history not only accommodates such rapid changes in body form, but actually requires that it would have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. As the animals left the Ark, multiplying to fill the Earth and all those empty ecological niches, natural selection could easily have caused an original ‘dog kind’ (e.g.) on the Ark to ‘split’ into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. Because there are historical records showing some of these subtypes in existence only a few hundred years after the Flood, this means that there had to have been some veryrapid (non-evolutionary) speciation. So it is encouragingly supportive of Biblical history when some such rapid changes are seen still occurring today.17 And this is being repeatedly confirmed.


QUOTE
If we start with the Word of the One who knows all, the evidence of today’s world makes a great deal of sense. Creatures were to reproduce ‘after their kind’, so mice come from mice, lizards from lizards, daisies from daisies. Evolution has never occurred, nor does it occur today. But organisms have a wonderful ‘built-in’ genetic capacity for rapid change in response to environmental pressures—most easily observed today in isolated island environments.

Such examples of rapid adaptation give us an insight into how the Earth’s many vacant ecological niches were recolonized after the Flood—a global event in real history. This event buried the ‘world that then was’ (2 Peter 3:6). Because this was already a fallen world, the fossils record death, suffering and disease. Because it was a created world, the fossil record consists of the remains of some creatures that no longer exist, and some that still do, but no sequence of one type changing by stages into a totally different type, whether slowly or quickly.
http://creation.com/...pecies-surprise


Edited by Lovedtodeath, 09 February 2011 - 01:46 PM.


#41 patchfire

patchfire

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1860 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:50 PM

I am sorry if I am being redundant. I can't read all of the replies without dealing with a fit. My son was watching video game reviews on the computer.

We teach the theory of gravity in school "as if it were a fact" because it's constructed upon facts. Gravity is directly observable. Objects fall. We don't float. The theory of gravity, however, could be wrong. The Theory of Gravity is man's attempt to describe how gravity operates/functions. It explains how and why of gravity. Every scientific theory is falsifiable.

Science actually teaches that absolute truth is unattainable for the human mind. Theories are not facts, but are the way that we explain the facts. Every scientific theory is falsifiable.

The entire scientific method is based on both the revision of and the attempts to *dis*prove the established work of others.


I'm really not sure why you quoted me before responding with this.

#42 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:09 PM

I'm really not sure why you quoted me before responding with this.

Because in expounding on your post, I was explaining the definition of theory as a scientific term. :confused: Most of which was a quote from an evolutionist that I have been learning from. :D

Edited by Lovedtodeath, 09 February 2011 - 02:30 PM.


#43 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:27 PM

As far as I understand the creationist viewpoint, one main issue is: have all species been created from the beginning "as is" (creationist) or are species evolving over large time frames due to spontaneous mutations and natural selection (evolutionist).
One reason why this is such a huge issue is the position of man : has man been created specially in the image of God - or is man just another animal that has evolved, so nothing really special.

It is clear that, if somebody believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is impossible for evolution to have taken place because the time frames are too short.
In order to even investigate whether evolution would have been possible, it is necessary to accept the fact that the Earth is old.

Just to clear up a bit. I started out an Old Earth Creationist with very little clarity on the details and I have been investigating Young Earth Creationism and Evolution for the past year... as a result of one of these debates.

The vast majority of Young Earth Creationists (and all of them that have PHDs) do not believe in fixity of the species. They believe in evolution, but that it happened very rapidly, and in a different direction... natural selection and speciation move down from the original created kinds. Here is a quote from another forum again:

This is really rather simple to explain. We all believe that dogs came from wolves. So imagine yourself a breeder. You start with two healthy wolves and you start applying selection. Along the way, you get lot's of variety. And after awhile you get chihuahuas. This is observable and repeatable science.

Now a question for you. Which is more adaptable? The original two wolves or the evolved chihuahuas?



#44 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:29 PM

To me there is no contradiction believing in both creation and evolution. I could never understand the problem of believing in both since they are not mutually exclusive IMHO.

:iagree:That's what I have been trying to say! I am still figuring out the details in my own mind by studying both Creation and Evolution before I teach my kids, since my original OEC beliefs really didn't fill those in.

My DH describes himself as a "theistic evolutionist". I describe myself as an "agnostic creationist".

Edited by Lovedtodeath, 09 February 2011 - 03:31 PM.


#45 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:10 PM

BARAMINOLOGY

emerging field of science

different created kinds as opposed to all life forms evolving from one.

Adaptations of species within all Created Kinds

I'm done here.

I'm sure both evolutionists and creationists will see / take what they want from this and go from there.

Karis, I have seen this mentioned in other forums and I have looked into it... Creationwiki has a pretty good explanation of what it is. Do you have any resources on this field? I can't find anything other than a few books that Todd Wood wrote and I would have to purchase. Do you know of scientists working in this field who are not working with Todd Wood? Some of his papers are... lacking in the scientific method.

TY! PM me if you want.

Edited by Lovedtodeath, 09 February 2011 - 03:12 PM.


#46 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:23 PM

I finally got around to all of the replies! I just realized that a bunch at the end are mine. :o I hope this is helping you Karis. :)

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.



Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

I think this is confusing. Could you clarify? Are scientists using the terms interchangeably?

The meaning of scientific theory is not ambiguous.
A scientific theory is a synthesis of information that contains well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. The hypotheses are tested against observations. A theory can not be proven, but it can be found to be in agreement with observation and predictions.
Scientific theories also evolve, become refined, sometimes become replaced.

Gravity is a theory. It explains why objects fall; it can be used to predict very accurately the trajectory of a falling or thrown object; it is in agreement with observation. It is, however, a THEORY. One that is generally accepted not only in scientific circles but in the general public as well.

As for how you teach it:
you teach how science works. Experiments and observations are explained by a theory. The theory makes predictions or explains phenomena yet unexplained. You perform experiments and observations to test whether the results are as predicted/explained by your theory. If the results agree, repeatedly, you can accept the theory (for now, for a specific set of systems). You have not proved that this is the correct theory. You have merely delivered an explanation that has predictive power, the key element of science.
Further results, maybe due to better technological possibilities, may make observations possible that will cause the theory to change. One nice example : the observations of the skies before the telescope were in agreement with the - wrong- geocentric theory. The evidence delivered by the telescope caused a shift to the - now commonly accepted - heliocentric theory.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you for sharing with us!

#47 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:30 PM

Could you clarify? Are scientists using the terms interchangeably?


Nah, just the rest of us, I think. lol

#48 Storm Bay

Storm Bay

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8389 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:31 PM

Wouldn't one need to differentiate between micro evolution and macro evolution or are we lumping it all in there together?

just curious


I don't teach any theory as fact, even with evolution of any kind. While I totally agree that there are changes in species at times (a fact we can see now with certain examples), I teach than any explanation for that is theory or faith or both (depending on which it is.) I also discuss what the word evolve means. Which one we believe comes in there, but that's not the point of this thread:001_smile:. I'm not partial to the terms micro and macroevolution anymore although we discuss what those mean as well.

I have read at least one top evolutionary scientist who stated that evolution is a fact, and he is not a layman (wish now that I could remember which one it was, but I was surprised; I expect that from nonscientists and people in what some call pseudosciences.

This is strictly an answer to the first post in the thread, and athough I've read some of the other responses, I'm not getting involved :). I'm happy to discuss why I no longer go for the micro/macro term strictly anymore, I'm happy to do that with PMs, but not with someone who wants to argue their stand on it--I've done enough of those types of threads on this forum before!

Edited by Karin, 09 February 2011 - 04:34 PM.


#49 Lovedtodeath

Lovedtodeath

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14972 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:33 PM

Nah, just the rest of us, I think. lol

Oh, okay! It makes sense now!:)

#50 Snowfall

Snowfall

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:38 PM

I have read at least one top evolutionary scientist who stated that evolution is a fact, and he is not a layman (wish now that I could remember which one it was, but I was surprised; I expect that from nonscientists and people in what some call pseudosciences.


I don't consider that surprising at all, at this point. We know evolution happens. There are scientific theories that we might still say aren't facts, but evolution just isn't one of them to anyone except people who have a reason to want to deny it. There are no atheist scientists who say evolution didn't happen, that I'm aware of. That right there ought to tell you something. There are scientists who disagree about all sorts of things, and they come from all sorts of backgrounds, but when we get to the topic of evolution, the only people who disagree with it are those whose religious beliefs prevent them from accepting it.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: creationism, evolution

What's with the ads?