Expert Opinion on Evolution et al

[arahant]

This has been troubling me for awhile. I accept that many, maybe most, Americans don't believe in evolution. But what i don't know is, do they understand that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, based on observations of the external world, and simply reject it? (perhaps based on arguments of 'group-think' or indoctrination). Or is the general belief that the question is disputed in scientific circles?

Unfortunately, i seem to have immersed myself in a cloistered world of evolutionists, so i can't poll personally, but perhaps i can find enough creationists/ID'ers/whatever here to satisfy my curiousity...

For the purposes of this poll, let me define 'scientific consensus' as '95% of graduate-level educated scientists in the field agree' where 'field' can be loosely interpreted here as 'Biology'

[hmkpoker]

This forum is very evolution-leaning, fyi

[Nielsio]

Ofcourse they don't know anything about scientific consensus or anything remotely relating to the mechanism.

People are traumatized through religion and educated stupid through the government.

If this about evolution already troubles you, you're in for a world of hurt (quite literally).

Check my blog for example.

[CaseS87]

its really quite incredible to me that people are treating evolution as some kind of controversy.

[FortunaMaximus]

It's not Darwinism as much as we're debating whether there's a blend of pure Darwinism, abiogenesis, and ID at work here.

But, yes, any kind of evolution is a given in a biosphere. Increases in life spans are a kind of evolution, for instance.

I believe in it, I just don't believe it's moving fast enough.

[Lestat]

I think the problem is with the gap in the fossil records (the Cambriage explosion). That and no one has ever observed a new species evolve.

I also believe it is mostly Christian fundamentalists who do not accept evolution. I can't imagine anyone who is not bogged down by religious dogma rejecting evolution in it's entirety. It's just unthinkable.

Although I will say it's not an easy subject. I certainly don't claim to have anywhere near a full grasp of it. But I do trust the scientific community. And on here, I go to Borodog.

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is with the gap in the fossil records (the Cambriage explosion). That and no one has ever lived for millions of consecutive years staring at a population of rabbits.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is with the gap in the fossil records (the Cambriage explosion). That and no one has ever observed a new species evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]


Define species.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I accept that many, maybe most, Americans don't believe in evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should give a precise definition of evolution.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is with the gap in the fossil records (the Cambriage explosion). That and no one has ever lived for millions of consecutive years staring at a population of rabbits.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't they eat the whole baryonic universe then...

Ah, well, tail in cotton sweaters.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I accept that many, maybe most, Americans don't believe in evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The study found that over the past 20 years:

* The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
* The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
* And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower,

[/ QUOTE ]

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I accept that many, maybe most, Americans don't believe in evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The study found that over the past 20 years:

* The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
* The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
* And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower,

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

please be kidn enough to quote your source here.

id love to look here and see if "combined data" means looking at data and simply doing addition/multiplication/simple statistical combination or actual meta-analysis.

if the former, the findings may be specious, if the latter, then man america is f*cking stupid and indecisive

Barron

[luckyme]

here's the pdf on method
data (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1)
[ QUOTE ]
if the latter, then man america is f*cking stupid and indecisive


[/ QUOTE ]
Americans rarely appear indecisive.

luckyme

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
here's the pdf on method
data (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1)
[ QUOTE ]
if the latter, then man america is f*cking stupid and indecisive


[/ QUOTE ]
Americans rarely appear indecisive.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
* And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

you appear to be correct in that these americans are decisive about being unsure.

Barron

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is with the gap in the fossil records (the Cambriage explosion). That and no one has ever observed a new species evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how many widely diverse breeds of dogs we see today after only a few millenia of highly selective breeding, I think it's inevitable that we'll eventually get to a point where their offspring are limited in their fertility (sorta like the liger). That would pretty much be the end of that.

[arahant]

I guess i chose the wrong forum for an answer to my question, and i'll need to join a religion forum /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But i thought i would reply to this...actually, speciation has been observed on a number of occasions (google speciation). It seems that this is little known outside graduate-level biology, which is unfortunate.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">actually, speciation has been observed on a number of occasions (google speciation). </font>

Examples? Please don't start listing different breeds of dogs.

Edit: And you're giving up too soon. Borodog can definitely can converse with you on an outside graduate level about evolution. I remember he even posted pictures of different dog breeds as an example of evolution. I prefaced my post by saying I don't have a real grip on it. Few people have a thorough understanding of evolution. You might want to try forums that specifically deal with this branch of science.

Edit/Edit: And YOU were the one who brought up most Americans not believing in evolution. If you think that has nothing to do with the religious theme that runs through the country, I think you're nuts.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess i chose the wrong forum for an answer to my question, and i'll need to join a religion forum /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But i thought i would reply to this...actually, speciation has been observed on a number of occasions (google speciation). It seems that this is little known outside graduate-level biology, which is unfortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]
[deja vu]

What do you consider to be the best example of two species where the first became the second through the process of natural evolution?

A ________________

B ________________

[/deja vu]

[Borodog]

Observed instances of speciation (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).
Some more observed instances of speciation (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)
29 Evidences for macroevolution (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

By the way, if you can get a Great Dane to interbreed with a teacup chihuahua, then you'll convince me they're the same species.

[Borodog]

As to the OP, it is far in excess of 95% of graduate level educated scientists in the biological sciences. My guess would be that it is in excess of 99%, but I don't have a study that shows it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
if the former, the findings may be specious, if the latter, then man america is f*cking stupid and indecisive

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's evidence that the public school system is doing its job (hint: its job is not to educate children).

[FortunaMaximus]

Hmm. You realize they've interbred Labradors and poodles, Boro?

The only way you'll get a Great Dane to interbreed the natural way with a chihuaua is with a winch.

In the lab, not so much.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. You realize they've interbred Labradors and poodles, Boro?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you'll get a Great Dane to interbreed the natural way with a chihuaua is with a winch.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly.

[valenzuela]

I dont have a clue about evolution but all smart scientists kinda agree with it so I just believe on them.

[arahant]

Somebody else provided some links, so i won't bother...plus, i never should have mentioned it since it hijacks my own thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

While i may or may not enjoy a good debate over evolution (over a beer, not the internet) that honestly wasn't my intent. I really just wanted a sample of how people who don't believe in it view the scientific consensus. Obviously, 2 is not a real big sample. I only asked here because 2+2 is really the only forum i frequent. It's been a little enlightening.

Certainly peoples views on evolution are often religiously grounded. I don't dispute that at all. Heck, i don't really dispute anything you say!

[madnak]

My personal experience probably isn't worth much either, statistically. But in my experience those that don't believe in evolution tend to think it's very controversial among scientists. In fact, a large proportion of them seem to think many scientists accept intelligent design as an alternative "theory."

[brashbrother]

The definition of evolution (paraphrasing) is "changes in the gene pool over generations." This is easily measured and scientifically proven.

Most Fundamentalist Christians assume (incorrectly)that "Evolution" is defined as the scientific explanation of our existence, as in, big bang leads to random particles leads to single celled organism leads to apes leads to humans, and further, that "evolution" as a universal theory implicates God is not the creator. That's why they get all huffy about it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Most Fundamentalist Christians assume (incorrectly)that "Evolution" is defined as the scientific explanation of our existence, as in, big bang leads to random particles leads to single celled organism leads to apes leads to humans, and further, that "evolution" as a universal theory implicates God is not the creator. That's why they get all huffy about it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. Goofballs like Dawkins help promote that error.

[madnak]

The theory of evolution also includes speciation, though not the big bang or the origin of life. Or even necessarily the origin of any given species, though I'd bet 99+% of scientists agree that all current forms of life evolved from common ancestors billions of years ago.

[Prodigy54321]

why are you guys getting all hung up on "species"..it's not about "species" at all...

it's about "Kinds".. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most Fundamentalist Christians assume (incorrectly)that "Evolution" is defined as the scientific explanation of our existence, as in, big bang leads to random particles leads to single celled organism leads to apes leads to humans, and further, that "evolution" as a universal theory implicates God is not the creator. That's why they get all huffy about it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. Goofballs like Dawkins help promote that error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you have never read a single one of Dawkins's books.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Over periods of millions of years, some species
of plants and animals adjust and survive while
other species die and become extinct. (T)
78% (U)16% (F)6%

[/ QUOTE ]

6% thought this statement was false. Where do they find these guys answering the surveys?

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution also includes speciation, though not the big bang or the origin of life. Or even necessarily the origin of any given species, though I'd bet 99+% of scientists agree that all current forms of life evolved from common ancestors billions of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are taking it a step further. Evolution does not demand "speciation" to occur. It only suggests gene pool changes will occur. Getting into speciation is the next scientifically logical step, but it simply has not been proven to occur at the level to which many scientists theorize it has happened.

I would not bet that high of a number of scientists "agree" on something that is theoretical and as yet, unproven. I am sure a large percentage feel it is a very likely theory. However, since we continue to have large gaps in the fossil record, 99+% of scientists WILL tell you it is just a theory (many begrudgingly).

[madnak]

No scientist will ever use the term "just a theory."

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
No scientist will ever use the term "just a theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No scientists would ever guess 99% of his peers would agree with him on anything, either.

[madnak]

That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
No scientist will ever use the term "just a theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

Because "just" is basically a pejorative which bears no relation to the facts, right? I want to establish agreement on this point for future discussions.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
You are taking it a step further. Evolution does not demand "speciation" to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution posits that these variations occurr..and as far as we know, there is no barrier to stop these varaitions from causing speciation, so, in a way, our current understanding of evolution does demand speciation to occur.

[ QUOTE ]
I would not bet that high of a number of scientists "agree" on something that is theoretical and as yet, unproven. I am sure a large percentage feel it is a very likely theory. However, since we continue to have large gaps in the fossil record, 99+% of scientists WILL tell you it is just a theory (many begrudgingly).

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't understand that the scientific term "theory" is very different from the common term "theory"..and most anti-evolutionists don't understand that difference either...which is why they say "it is just a theory".

[madnak]

Ouch. Okay, ya got me there.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
evolution posits that these variations occurr..and as far as we know, there is no barrier to stop these varaitions from causing speciation, so, in a way, our current understanding of evolution does demand speciation to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Given the conditions of life on Earth, barring some kind of strange unseen pressure, speciation must occur.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

I think even a layman would recognize the phrase "just an all-powerful being" in any context is likely being facetious.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think even a layman would recognize the phrase "just an all-powerful being" in any context is likely being facetious.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely his point. Laymen are not familiar enough with the technical usage of "theory" to comment on its robustness.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is "fact." A theory is the closest thing there is to a scientific "fact." You're switching your definitions of theory here - first you say most scientists will agree that evolution is a theory (meaning "fact") and then you say that since it's "just a theory" (meaning "not a fact") it doesn't matter. But the definitions of theory you're using are opposite. C'mon, now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think even a layman would recognize the phrase "just an all-powerful being" in any context is likely being facetious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because there's only one definition of "all-powerful being," and in that you're right. How about if someone says "the point is moot" and means the point is highly relevant, how many people would get that one?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly you have never read a single one of Dawkins's books.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about his books. Now buzz off.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've been reading way too much anti-evolutionist material..

it is not "an important distinction for the layman."..

it is used to appeal to the layman before they can discover that "theory" and "fact" are not so far apart as far as evaluating evidence and coming to conclusions based on that evidence is concerned

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clearly you have never read a single one of Dawkins's books.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about his books. Now buzz off.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are you talking about then..perhaps we could get a link?...I have never heard Dawkins "promote that error" as you say

[brashbrother]

Stephen Hawking: "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

I know the strength of "Theory with a capital T" in science, but I still stand firm that it is not considered "factual."

[madnak]

Actually he did come across as an ass in some series of videos /images/graemlins/frown.gif. Don't remember the link.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Stephen Hawking: "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

I know the strength of "Theory with a capital T" in science, but I still stand firm that it is not considered "factual."

[/ QUOTE ]

when most people hear evolution described as "just a theory" or "not a fact, just a theory" they think of something like "I have a theory that the ginger-ale at Monk's is just sprite and coke mixed together"(George Costanza /images/graemlins/grin.gif)...they don't understand just how strong the evidence for it is...

when they hear "theory" they thing that it might be true..like 1%-50% likley to be true, not 99.9% likely to be true..

you're right that we are not 100% sure that evolution is true..with no margin of error, but it is so high (and there is an absence of any other even remotely possible theory)..that believing that it is the overwhelmingly most likley truth is the only logical conclusion.

poeple also seem to think, "Evolution and creation are both theories, they must be equal"..but they aren't even close

most people put "theory" in line with what is actally a "hyposthesis"

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
what are you talking about then..perhaps we could get a link?...I have never heard Dawkins "promote that error" as you say

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was saying that Dawkins' aggressiveness promotes creationist errors, as it provokes them to overzealousness in their counterpoints.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually he did come across as an ass in some series of videos /images/graemlins/frown.gif. Don't remember the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins likes to appeal to the commen person more than any other person of his kind that I have seen..so he often tries to dumb down his points..unfortunately, in doing so, he often says things that aren't very clear and he also sometimes dumbs it down to what will work considering his audience..which isn's always technically correct information...

still better than his counterparts' arguments though IMO /images/graemlins/grin.gif

but I have never heard him make the mistake in stating what NotReady said he did.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the strength of "Theory with a capital T" in science, but I still stand firm that it is not considered "factual."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "factual" isn't a scientific term. Science acknowledges that everything is empirically uncertain. What we call a "fact" in day-to-day life, what you might call a datum or an observation in science, is just something we see and have no reason to disbelieve.

A scientific theory is much stronger than a "fact." It's a model according to which many predictions have been made, and all those predictions have held. It's something we see and have no reason to disbelieve, but we test it anyhow just to make sure, and all the tests seem to indicate it's true. It makes a fact look shaky.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what are you talking about then..perhaps we could get a link?...I have never heard Dawkins "promote that error" as you say

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought he was saying that Dawkins' aggressiveness promotes creationist errors, as it provokes them to overzealousness in their counterpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most Fundamentalist Christians assume (incorrectly)that "Evolution" is defined as the scientific explanation of our existence, as in, big bang leads to random particles leads to single celled organism leads to apes leads to humans, and further, that "evolution" as a universal theory implicates God is not the creator. That's why they get all huffy about it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. Goofballs like Dawkins help promote that error.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is what he said..

I don't remember dawkins saying that evolution excludes the possibility that god is the creator..

he often says that there is no god..that he didn't create anything, but I've never heard him say that evolution is what excludes this possibility

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually he did come across as an ass in some series of videos /images/graemlins/frown.gif. Don't remember the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I love his books but I think if he bit his tongue more evolution would be more accepted. He's definitely a polarizing figure.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why we can't get along. Two definitions of the same word. Let's rename the "Theory of Evolution" so that we can discuss "evolution" (which is scientific fact and provable, repeatable, etc.) as simply a function of how the world works.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why we can't get along. Two definitions of the same word. Let's rename the "Theory of Evolution" so that we can discuss "evolution" (which is scientific fact and provable, repeatable, etc.) as simply a function of how the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the willfully obtuse can make a problem out of this.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have never heard Dawkins "promote that error" as you say


[/ QUOTE ]

Just in general Dawkins is a vocal, anti-religion atheist. He makes all manner of absurd statements about religion, lumping all religions together and treating them the same. He then promotes common ancestor evolution as if it is the alternative to God. I don't have a specific link but if you want to debate Dawkins I'll be glad to later - running out of time for today. But I really don't want to read his books. I'm just talking about his public appearances.

That's my impression of him from scanning the net. If I'm wrong about him, I'll retract. But I watched the first 2 minutes of that "Root of all evil" thing (as much as I could stand) so I doubt I'll have to retract.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the strength of "Theory with a capital T" in science, but I still stand firm that it is not considered "factual."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "factual" isn't a scientific term. Science acknowledges that everything is empirically uncertain. What we call a "fact" in day-to-day life, what you might call a datum or an observation in science, is just something we see and have no reason to disbelieve.

A scientific theory is much stronger than a "fact." It's a model according to which many predictions have been made, and all those predictions have held. It's something we see and have no reason to disbelieve, but we test it anyhow just to make sure, and all the tests seem to indicate it's true. It makes a fact look shaky.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: "The term theoretical is sometimes used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment. If enough experiments and observations are made by many researchers, such a theory may become sufficiently well-tested to be considered so reliable that its premises may after that stage be termed scientific laws in the sense of being generalizations based on empirical observations (not to be confused with laws which prescribe how the world should be). Depending on the context, an extremely well-tested theory may allow the terms "theory" and "law" to be used interchangeably without any objection by experts familiar with the current state of the research. In the example given below, electromagnetic theory as a whole is today sufficiently investigated that it is often referred to simply as "electromagnetism". Newton's theory of gravity is today normally referred to as the "law of gravity" as it provides a generalization useful for many practical purposes, but beyond certain limits the more accurate general relativity theory must be used"

It seems there are designations for those ideas deemed to be so strong as to be nearly indisputable. The Theory of Evolution is not one of them.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true at all - in fact, Borodog just did. And I'll bet RDuke has, too.

But you seem to be missing the point. A theory is basically the strongest thing there is in science. A scientific theory isn't like a "theory" as it's used informally. It's an extremely powerful group of ideas that work together in consistent ways and explain a wide variety of phenomena.

To say evolution is "just" a theory is like saying God is "just" an all-powerful being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the same at all. I say "just a theory" to emphasize that it is not "fact." This is an important distinction for the layman.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why we can't get along. Two definitions of the same word. Let's rename the "Theory of Evolution" so that we can discuss "evolution" (which is scientific fact and provable, repeatable, etc.) as simply a function of how the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL..I don't think you quite understand...

with respect to a scientific postulation..there is not 2 definitions for the word "theory" there is only one...

evolution is a theory in the sense that science uses the term, not the layman..there is no argument..the layman is making the mistake

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it's normal usage, but I like to keep it cleaner by using " natural selection is the theory behind the fact of evolution". Knowing that the 'theory of evolution' also takes in genetic drift, sexual selection, etc, it's reasonable enough as the umbrella term but it does lead to these discussions to sort out the two uses of the same word.
You see this confusion often with non-scientists.

luckyme

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have never heard Dawkins "promote that error" as you say


[/ QUOTE ]

Just in general Dawkins is a vocal, anti-religion atheist. He makes all manner of absurd statements about religion, lumping all religions together and treating them the same. He then promotes common ancestor evolution as if it is the alternative to God. I don't have a specific link but if you want to debate Dawkins I'll be glad to later - running out of time for today. But I really don't want to read his books. I'm just talking about his public appearances.

That's my impression of him from scanning the net. If I'm wrong about him, I'll retract. But I watched the first 2 minutes of that "Root of all evil" thing (as much as I could stand) so I doubt I'll have to retract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll concede..he does tend to make them seem like opposing views more than most other evolutionists..I've just never heard his directly say that evolution says that god did not create the universe

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Theory of Evolution is what scientists use to explain the oservable fact of evolution. Just they use the Theory of Gravity to explain the observable fact of gravity.

So, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it's normal usage, but I like to keep it cleaner by using " natural selection is the theory behind the fact of evolution". Knowing that the 'theory of evolution' also takes in genetic drift, sexual selection, etc, it's reasonable enough as the umbrella term but it does lead to these discussions to sort out the two uses of the same word.
You see this confusion often with non-scientists.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Equating the theory of evolution with an incomplete subset of its hypotheses cannot be anything but a mistake. If the non-scientist is confused, the task of the scientist is to disabuse him of his confusion.

[madnak]

A law refers to a specific statement of general truth. A theory is much "bigger" than a law. Although sometimes the line can be hard to draw - there's no technical definition written in stone. The theory of evolution can never be a law - it's entirely possible there may be laws of evolution, in the same way there are laws of thermodynamics. But keep in mind thermodynamics describes much more than just the laws of thermodynamics.

Also just as electromagnetic theory is typically called "electromagnetism" by scientists, so evolutionary theory is called "evolution." It's only even mentioned specifically as a theory when creationists get involved.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

.I've just never heard his directly say that evolution says that god did not create the universe


[/ QUOTE ]

He may not have exactly that way. Pretty hard to think he doesn't believe that though. If he's as smart as some people think he must know he is perceived to believe that. If he doesn't believe it he should clear it up.

[madnak]

Also keep in mind that laws don't happen often these days. I'd argue that the "theory" of relativity is extremely strong, but it's still "just" a theory.

Maybe people got scared when Newton's "Laws" of Motion ended up being limited in their application? I don't know. Boro, you're into physics, that's where all the laws happen. What's up with laws lately? Have any new laws been "declared" in the recent past?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.I've just never heard his directly say that evolution says that god did not create the universe


[/ QUOTE ]

He may not have exactly that way. Pretty hard to think he doesn't believe that though. If he's as smart as some people think he must know he is perceived to believe that. If he doesn't believe it he should clear it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt he believes that. Why do you think he does?

I imagine some people have gotten that impression from my on these forums. Do I need to clear up the assumptions they make about me? Incidentally, they tend to be the same people who think I have demonic horns and rape little babies for fun.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.I've just never heard his directly say that evolution says that god did not create the universe


[/ QUOTE ]

He may not have exactly that way. Pretty hard to think he doesn't believe that though. If he's as smart as some people think he must know he is perceived to believe that. If he doesn't believe it he should clear it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution doesn't say that the flying spaghetti moster didn't create the universe either...but just as with that, he has other reasons for coming to the conclusion that neither the FSM nor god created the universe..

evolution may contribute to these reasons, since now both beief in FSM or god now doesn't postulate they do what they were previously believed to do..hence less of a reason to believe in either one.

[Borodog]

The idea of the scientific "law" is outdated. Most of the "laws" we have these days are simply called that due to tradition.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do I need to clear up the assumptions they make about me?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not a public figure attacking religion, claiming to speak for Science and making huge profits from your opinions.

[ QUOTE ]

who think I have demonic horns and rape little babies for fun.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-oh. Good thing my pencil has an eraser./images/graemlins/cool.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not a public figure attacking religion, claiming to speak for Science and making huge profits from your opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And hopefully never will be. Sounds like way too much work.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been troubling me for awhile. I accept that many, maybe most, Americans don't believe in evolution. But what i don't know is, do they understand that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, based on observations of the external world, and simply reject it? (perhaps based on arguments of 'group-think' or indoctrination). Or is the general belief that the question is disputed in scientific circles?

Unfortunately, i seem to have immersed myself in a cloistered world of evolutionists, so i can't poll personally, but perhaps i can find enough creationists/ID'ers/whatever here to satisfy my curiousity...

For the purposes of this poll, let me define 'scientific consensus' as '95% of graduate-level educated scientists in the field agree' where 'field' can be loosely interpreted here as 'Biology'

[/ QUOTE ]

I have reposted the OP, so that you can see where I come from and why I have been concerned with the idea of definition of evolution. He did not capitalize it, nor did he say "theory of" evolution. Hoewever, if he was asking only about evolution in a gene pool, his question is silly to a scientist. Which is why I assumed the audience to be laymen, and in need of some explanation as to what evolution vs. Theory of Evolution might be. Forgive me for insulting your intelligences, since all those who have posted obviously hold some graduate degrees in the sciences.