Ok, now I understand the difference between Hypothesis and Theory.  Thanks for the clarifications.

The only problem I have with teaching these things in a scientific setting, is that nearly all of the time, Public Schools refer to Evolutionary Theory as proven fact.  Christian schools nearly without exception treat Creationism as fact.

I don't like this.  In my opinion, it perverts the whole notion of science.  I also don't like the term "Political Science" for the same reason.  It's not hard science like we stated before.

I have no problem with folks discussing Evolutionany Theory in Biology class, as long as they are honest about it's theoretical status.

What is hard to accept is that 'most of the scientific community' agrees that Evolutionary Theory is a fact, and anyone that dares to question the science of it is a worthless religious wackjob who believes in a flat earth and thinks that America is the center of the universe.

I don't buy the whole 'earth was created in 6 days' thing, but when it comes to convincing me that Evolutionism (not to be confused with Evolutionary Theory) is responsible for the creation of the world, call me a skeptic.

Rik, earlier you made the point that Evolution and a belief in God were not mutually exclusive, I wholeheartedly agreed with you.

Hmmmmm.  Interesting.  OT I know but perhaps you should have given James Meritt some credit for this quote.

Has it been proven that these are actually new hybrids of Goatsbeard?  Two new species can hardly just appear at the same time and place.
If speciation does happen then it should be a random and uncontrolled process.  In millions of years, and over millions of square miles, it would not occur twice at the same time.

It is far more probable that these were two undiscovered strains of Goatsbeard.  Occam's Razor.

I have not ruled out the possibility that speciation can't happen, I just haven't seen any definitive examples.  Such an example would require a completely closed system and careful monitoring in order to remove any doubt of data contamination.

Why?  Would the attribution change the facts?  If not, then why bring it up?  I don't go looking for the source of the nonsense I see Creationists posting...although I have my suspicions about its origin.



Occam's Razor is a tool, not a law.



I just showed you one and you rejected it.  If you reject any new species saying "well, it probably already existed" then it will be impossible to convince you and I may as well stop trying.

Torf,

I can see your concerns, and the truth is, scientists get very jealous of their pet theories.

When plate tectonics was introduced some 30-40 years ago, some geologists just flipped. They gave all sorts of very good reasons why it was impossible (there was no mechanism/energy source, the plates couldn't float sufficiently, etc.) Now, techtonics is proven, observed fact.

While we can't ever go back and observe evolution, we can come pretty close with microevolution. And, aside from some questions regarding punctuated equilibrium, evolution seems to fit the facts we know pretty well.

Alternate that with a creationist "theory" which of course means a Christain Genesis type of creation. Six days doesn't fit with carbon dating and other information we have regarding the age of the earth. Noah's ark has a lot of problems, starting with where's the water to what happened to dinosaurs. Where did Cain's wife come from? To answer these questions you have to start performing some significant mental gymnastics with what is written in the bible. And many of these gymnastics violate other established theories.

Anyway, I could go on, but the question is, what do you throw out? Alot of theories that agree pretty darn well or just the one that doesn't agree? Logic indicates that you probably have a problem with your one theory, in this case, creationism.

Even among theories, there are certain levels of concretness. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity seems to be pretty solid, where as the theories regarding gamma bursts (deep sky thingees) are still hotly debated. The theory of evolution seems to be shaping up as one of the former, which is why I think you see it being "preached" as a scientific law, even though it will never officially be such.

-legrue

Fair enough.  I just thought it was funny that I had read that exact quote before.  It really doesn't matter anyway.  

Occam's Razor was quoted to be as being a way to tell wat is correct.  Obviously the simplest explanation isn't always correct, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong either.  Apparently Occam's Razor has two edges?

Since we are drawing our examples from the same source, then no it doesn't make sense, unless you feel like discussing them.  Just because I haven't seen an example of speciation yet, doesn't mean they don't occur.

Please don't infer that just because I think that there might be a simpler, more plausable, explanation for the Goatsbeard, doesn't mean that I am a close-minded religious fanatic whose very salvation depends on strict literal interpretations of Genesis.  I'm not, in fact, I have gotten into a lot of trouble while attending a Christian HS for expressing contrarian views.

I am not throwing anything out at this point.  I believe that Genesis was based on the facts.
I also believe that the earth is far older than many Creationists calculate.
I believe that Genesis was not written as a science text or a complete documentary.
I believe that evolution is probably the cause of the changes in the world that we see.
I believe that there is a God, and that he is good: meaning that He is not out there trying to trick us with an old book, or scientific evidence.
I believe that the world we see is real, and that reasonable deductions can be made about how it arrived at it's present state.

I don't believe that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, and I don't believe that a Christian must hold a 7 literal day belief in order to be saved or whatever.

So, in reality, I don't have a definitive theory about how or why the Universe is here, but if I did, it would probably be somthing like Arther C. Clarke wrote about in the [i]Rama[/i] series, only God would care more about the human race.

Torf,

I think we probably agree on a majority of points.

Rama was a pretty good series, as well although I didn't (and still don't) agree with Clark regarding our final disposition.

regards,

legrue