Cue up your South Carolina jokes - Panel demands critical review of evolution

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cue up your South Carolina jokes - Panel demands critical review of evolution (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:26:24 AM EDT

Well, we haven't had a good evolution thread in a while....

www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS04/602140353&SearchID=73235751696072

Panel demands critical analysis of evolution

The committee charged with overseeing education reform in the state recommended Monday that students "critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution, a move state Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum said would lead to confusion in the classroom over the origin of life.

The action puts the hot potato back in the state Board of Education's lap.

The decision could foreshadow a stalemate between the two groups over the issue. Both must agree on new standards before they can be adopted.

Tenenbaum has said if they cannot agree, science teachers will continue to use the current standards.

State Sen. Mike Fair, an EOC member, said the 10-2 vote doesn't inject intelligent design or creationism into the curriculum.
"It has everything to do with critical thought," said Fair, a proponent of the idea that public school students should make up their own minds about evolution after studying a variety of sources.

"It's win-win, except for the people who worship at the throne of Darwin, and they're frightened because their religion is at risk. And it's at risk because of scientific discovery."

The committee technically voted down four biology "indicators" related to the teaching of evolution.

Some of Darwin's leading detractors in recent years have argued random mutation and natural selection alone can't account for the complexity of life and that it must be the work of an intelligent designer.

But Fair said studying the work of scientists who challenge evolution doesn't necessarily lead to a discussion of the supernatural.

Phillip Shoopman of Greer, an engineering consultant who serves on the state Board of Education, said he agrees with the EOC on teaching students to critically analyze evolution.

"To interject this does not remove the theory of evolution, but it does allow you to introduce both sides," he said. "And I don't see the problem with that. Questioning is where good thinking starts."

________________________

THought you'd all like to know how South Carolina is out of control. YET ANOTHER reason I live here and love it.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:29:25 AM EDT

[#1]

I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:32:47 AM EDT

[#2]

Evolutionists do not want their religion examined because it cannot stand up.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:33:20 AM EDT

[#3]

There is nothing wrong with "critically analyzing" evolutionary theory.

One doesn't have to mention intelligent design or other creationist stories in order to critique and analyze the dominant biological paradigm.

ETA: All mainstream ideas are worthy of critique and analysis. It is through critique and analysis that elevates some theories to become the dominant paradigm in a science.

Is it the hope of some that some weakness or unknown element in modern evolutionary theory will somehow elevate creationism or intelligent design? I'm not worried in the least.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:35:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fairies are not invisible. I can see them!

Dinosaurs never existed. All the fossils that clearly show evolutionary changes are clearly hoaxes.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:36:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with "critically analyzing" evolutionary theory.

One doesn't have to mention intelligent design or other creationist stories in order to critique and analyze the dominant biological paradigm.

Actually, I hope that's how they go at this.

I don't want public schools teaching Biblical doctrine - they aren't really qualified to do so.

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:37:35 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Yes, actually. However, it has been done many times before. It has to be a GOOD critical review.

This might backfire on the panel...

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:39:55 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with "critically analyzing" evolutionary theory.

One doesn't have to mention intelligent design or other creationist stories in order to critique and analyze the dominant biological paradigm.

Actually, I hope that's how they go at this.

I don't want public schools teaching Biblical doctrine - they aren't really qualified to do so.

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Correct. It's not an idol we bow at in worship. It's a possible explanation of the origins of life and like all science it not only can be examined, it should be. Tear at it, poke at it, defend it, assail it. That's the only way you develope it or disprove it.

ETA:

Some of Darwin's leading detractors in recent years have argued random mutation and natural selection alone can't account for the complexity of life and that it must be the work of an intelligent designer.

If however it's going to be done by people who make statements like this I don't expect much from it.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:42:13 AM EDT

[#8]

I believe in an intelligent designer, I believe it's Zeuss

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:42:22 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Correct. This will only help evolutionary theory, but what puzzles me is the focus on evolutionary theory. The same standard should apply to all subjects and mainstream paradigms.

Of course, it's difficult to truly be critical and thorough in analysis when you don't fully understand all the facts, ambiguities, and implications of theories.

Sometimes I fear we push the "critical analysis" agenda before children have a good supply of ideas with which to be critical.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:47:07 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Correct. It's not an idol we bow at in worship. It's a possible explanation of the origins of life and like all science it not only can be examined, it should be. Tear at it, poke at it, defend it, assail it. That's the only way you develope it or disprove it.

My understanding is evolution really doesn't address origins....it mroe addresses current mechanisms.

Some of Darwin's leading detractors in recent years have argued random mutation and natural selection alone can't account for the complexity of life and that it must be the work of an intelligent designer.
If however it's going to be done by people who make statements like this I don't expect much from it.

Likely you are right.

Every time I'e heard the irreducible complexity argument used, its dismissed out of hand as "religious."

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:47:54 AM EDT

[#11]

Science is constantly changing, consistent self examination is important to maintaining its accuracy. This is a good thing.
That said, calling intelligent design science is very foolish IMHO.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:48:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Evolutionists do not want their religion examined because it cannot stand up.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

You know science; it’s that thing that makes your life immeasurably better every day.

To compare that to religion is so backward and ignorant I don't know what to say.

I guess atom smashers, computers, and chemistry are a scam too? What about modern medicine?

Science, and Evolution, in so far that it is a scientific theory, is ALL about examination.

People who understand the theory of evolution want it to be examined, because they want to know the truth. If it turned out to be wrong, then scientists would need to know that, becuase it brings the big picture into better focus.

Religion is all about faith, which is code for, no evidence what-so-fucking-ever.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:56:31 AM EDT

[#13]

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Yes, but I am not counting on it remaining so. History has indicated otherwise.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:01:52 AM EDT

[#14]

People are overlooking two very important facts in this debate..

1) The job of those who serve on panels such as these (to include school boards and the like), is to provide for the education of our youth. Their job is not political grandstanding or pointless quibbling over ten minutes of classroom content.

2) No matter how much ideology is legislated into the classroom, the children will see through it. They know what bullshit is before they're allowed to say it. They know full well that when their teacher stands up and reads the legally vetted state required paragraph on creationism or darwinism or fucking antidisestablishmentarianism.. someone's playing with them. The kids also see the furor in the press, and I seriously doubt they appreciate being made pawns in a theological shit-throwing match.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:02:01 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Actually that has gone on from day one. That is what science IS.

It is also why Pilthdown Man isn't part of some scientific "dogma." It was scientific "critical analysis" that proved it was a hoax.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:03:39 AM EDT

[#16]

the fatal flaw to intelligent design is this:
there can't be a creator because no being that intelligent could have created the dumbshits in this country who keep beating their jesus horse. CHRIST!!!!!(hey, nice pun) LET IT DIE!!!! can somone come up with a stick beating a dead jesus animated gif?

no offense to the fine folks here, but why does all this silliness keep coming from the south and midwest? are you guys still that backward?

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:04:47 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I guess atom smashers, computers, and chemistry are a scam too? What about modern medicine?

The snag with those, you see, is that they are actually demonstrable sciences where you can reproduce results in a lab. You can test theories on the behavior of hydrogen gas.

It is considerably more difficult to demonstrate in the lab how a dog or a pre-dog ancestor turns into a monkey by showing that mutation results in increased genetic information and complexity.

THAT is the kind of statement that can be included in a scientifically critical review of evolution. Present evolutionary theory. Present the scientifically valid objections to those theories. Believe it or not, there is disagreement WITHIN the evolutionary community about various issues. But when one evolutionist presents an objection to a theory presented by another evolutionist on scientific grounds, I don't hear a whole lot of people eager to label him/her a religious zealot.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:06:09 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
People are overlooking two very important facts in this debate..

1) The job of those who serve on panels such as these (to include school boards and the like), is to provide for the education of our youth. Their job is not political grandstanding or pointless quibbling over ten minutes of classroom content.

2) No matter how much ideology is legislated into the classroom, the children will see through it. They know what bullshit is before they're allowed to say it. They know full well that when their teacher stands up and reads the legally vetted state required paragraph on creationism or darwinism or fucking antidisestablishmentarianism.. someone's playing with them. The kids also see the furor in the press, and I seriously doubt they appreciate being made pawns in a theological shit-throwing match.

I deal with college kids every day.

Suffice it to say that the vast majority of them DO NOT know when they are being fed a line.

If the majority of them were able to do so, college campuses would not be breeding grounds of libbie thought, would they?

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:06:44 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Correct. It's not an idol we bow at in worship. It's a possible explanation of the origins of life and like all science it not only can be examined, it should be. Tear at it, poke at it, defend it, assail it. That's the only way you develope it or disprove it.

My understanding is evolution really doesn't address origins....it mroe addresses current mechanisms.

Some of Darwin's leading detractors in recent years have argued random mutation and natural selection alone can't account for the complexity of life and that it must be the work of an intelligent designer.
If however it's going to be done by people who make statements like this I don't expect much from it.

Likely you are right.

Every time I'e heard the irreducible complexity argument used, its dismissed out of hand as "religious."

You are correct.... the true origins of life are not addressed. I used the wrong word there.

On part two,
I dismiss it because the simple fact that you can't explain something in your current model, does not then prove that only God could do it. It could mean:

- You are wrong. Nothing else.
- Your observations are incomplete.
- Your model is flawed or incomplete.
- You have missed a variable.

The list goes on. Unexplained complexity is not defacto proof of a devine creator. If you have positive observable and testable proof I'll listen to what you have to say. My guess is however you can only disprove or invalidate aspects of evolution, not really prove the creation by God. Which is why science and religion should not be spliced together.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:09:23 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

Actually that has gone on from day one. That is what science IS.

It is also why Pilthdown Man isn't part of some scientific "dogma." It was scientific "critical analysis" that proved it was a hoax.

I think the import of the story (having myself heard one of the board members on local talk radio yesterday) is not so much the religious aspect - she was pretty clear that religion was outside the sphere on the boards intent.

It was to remove Darwins theory from being accepted verbatim, and requiring students do the hard work of critically reviewing it.

Kinda like the journalists who want the WH press secretary to bring their news stories (On Cheney) to them becuase they are too lazy to do actual reporting, now science students will have to do the work of critically reviewing Darwins theory.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:12:16 AM EDT

[#21]

re: the theory of irreducible complexity... you said -

Quoted:

I dismiss it because the simple fact that you can't explain something in your current model, does not then prove that only God could do it. .

Irreducible complexity unto itself is a good postulate / hypothesis. The problem is when creationists then overreach to say "well it MUST be God then."

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:16:53 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
re: the theory of irreducible complexity... you said -

Quoted:

I dismiss it because the simple fact that you can't explain something in your current model, does not then prove that only God could do it. .

Irreducible complexity unto itself is a good postulate / hypothesis. The problem is when creationists then overreach to say "well it MUST be God then."

I think you just got at the root of this debate. There is a huge difference between questioning the scientific validity of parts of evolution and attributing all that isn't clear to a "intelligent designer" (ie God).

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:33:58 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I think you just got at the root of this debate. There is a huge difference between questioning the scientific validity of parts of evolution and attributing all that isn't clear to a "intelligent designer" (ie God).

I freely admit trying to prove (in a science sense) God as creator is silly in the extreme. (which is NOT to say there is a complete lack of evidence for God - just that ultimately its a matter of faith)

Christians are themselves sometimes their own worst enemies.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:43:55 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

I think the import of the story (having myself heard one of the board members on local talk radio yesterday) is not so much the religious aspect - she was pretty clear that religion was outside the sphere on the boards intent.

The VPC is pretty adamant that it is simply a "safety issue" and they have no agenda against gun in general. John Kerry is a sportsman and cares about the second amendment.

I don't believe them either.

This is because if she DID admit that this was driven by religion and creationism and if the VPC DID admit they were ultimately seeking a ban on ALL GUNS and if John Kerry did admit he doesn't give a fuck about the second amendment then people would see the agenda for what it is.

Science didn't simply invent a creation story called "evolution." In fact prior to Darwin science had many varied ideas. It was the study of the fossil record, various species and other OBSERVED EVIDENCE that led to the conclusions of Darwin.

And so far we have seen NO EVIDENCE which suggests otherwise.

So until some kind of NEW EVIDENCE comes along to suggest otherwise...this is what we know for now.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:44:05 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
re: the theory of irreducible complexity... you said -

Quoted:

I dismiss it because the simple fact that you can't explain something in your current model, does not then prove that only God could do it. .

Irreducible complexity unto itself is a good postulate / hypothesis. The problem is when creationists then overreach to say "well it MUST be God then."

I can agree. I see what you are saying.

If your theory can't account for the variety of living things then you have a problem, but how would one really limit the variables here? People at my wife's church do this all the time. They sieze on something that is true and science has previously been wrong about. Then they take off and leap across the Grand Canyon about what that then "proves".

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:46:32 AM EDT

[#26]

For those of you that don't believe in evolution, what do you think happened to the dinosaurs?

How do you explain that the earth is 4.6 Billion years old?

I'm guessing you just don't care.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:48:38 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you just got at the root of this debate. There is a huge difference between questioning the scientific validity of parts of evolution and attributing all that isn't clear to a "intelligent designer" (ie God).

I freely admit trying to prove (in a science sense) God as creator is silly in the extreme. (which is NOT to say there is a complete lack of evidence for God - just that ultimately its a matter of faith)

Christians are themselves sometimes their own worst enemies.

Exactly. Pretty well sums up the issue.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:52:57 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
For those of you that don't believe in evolution, what do you think happened to the dinosaurs?

Let's see if you can accept my answer without mocking......

The general theory is they expired in the flood, and with the destruction of the vapor canopy that blocked UV rays and maintained a semi tropical atmosphere, the dinosaurs were no longer "the fittest " in a colder , UV environment.

You are NOT reqired to agree. You asked for an explanation, and I supplied it.

How do you explain that the earth is 4.6 Billion years old?

Dating methods are subject to scientific disagreement, but lets just accept your date, for sake of discussion.

The Biblical record ( I wasn't there at the beginning of time, so I can't provide an eyewitness report) makes NO assertions about the age of the geosphere - the ball of dirt and water we now sit on. So neither will I.

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:02:10 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
the fatal flaw to intelligent design is this:
there can't be a creator because no being that intelligent could have created the dumbshits in this country who keep beating their jesus horse. CHRIST!!!!!(hey, nice pun) LET IT DIE!!!! can somone come up with a stick beating a dead jesus animated gif?

no offense to the fine folks here, but why does all this silliness keep coming from the south and midwest? are you guys still that backward?

We probably are still backwards in your eyes, but at least I can still put more than 10 rounds in my weapon!

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:11:23 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the fatal flaw to intelligent design is this:
there can't be a creator because no being that intelligent could have created the dumbshits in this country who keep beating their jesus horse. CHRIST!!!!!(hey, nice pun) LET IT DIE!!!! can somone come up with a stick beating a dead jesus animated gif?

no offense to the fine folks here, but why does all this silliness keep coming from the south and midwest? are you guys still that backward?

We probably are still backwards in your eyes, but at least I can still put more than 10 rounds in my weapon!

West coast -- Are you that arrogant?

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:40:13 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
For those of you that don't believe in evolution, what do you think happened to the dinosaurs?

Let's see if you can accept my answer without mocking......

The general theory is they expired in the flood, and with the destruction of the vapor canopy that blocked UV rays and maintained a semi tropical atmosphere, the dinosaurs were no longer "the fittest " in a colder , UV environment.

You are NOT reqired to agree. You asked for an explanation, and I supplied it.

How do you explain that the earth is 4.6 Billion years old?

Dating methods are subject to scientific disagreement, but lets just accept your date, for sake of discussion.

The Biblical record ( I wasn't there at the beginning of time, so I can't provide an eyewitness report) makes NO assertions about the age of the geosphere - the ball of dirt and water we now sit on. So neither will I.

I can accept this without mocking. I have lots of practice.

It's easier for people to bend reality to fit their beliefs then to bend their beliefs to fit reality.

I wont say any more on that, because it is off topic.

I hope the "critical review" goes well.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:33:33 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
People are overlooking two very important facts in this debate..

1) The job of those who serve on panels such as these (to include school boards and the like), is to provide for the education of our youth. Their job is not political grandstanding or pointless quibbling over ten minutes of classroom content.

2) No matter how much ideology is legislated into the classroom, the children will see through it. They know what bullshit is before they're allowed to say it. They know full well that when their teacher stands up and reads the legally vetted state required paragraph on creationism or darwinism or fucking antidisestablishmentarianism.. someone's playing with them. The kids also see the furor in the press, and I seriously doubt they appreciate being made pawns in a theological shit-throwing match.

I deal with college kids every day.

Suffice it to say that the vast majority of them DO NOT know when they are being fed a line.

If the majority of them were able to do so, college campuses would not be breeding grounds of libbie thought, would they?

I deal with high school kids every day.

Most of them know the "foul stench of a pretender"

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:38:13 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Evolutionists do not want their religion examined because it cannot stand up.

I've yet to hear a decent explanation for the evolution of bats. Or why the evolutionary "series" of horses is always seperate species instead of a graduating series of creatures slowly transitioning over time. And what's with the totally random number of rib pairs in every species? And why the heck do we keep finding modern horses in the same or lower rock layers as their supposed ancestors if they weren't contemporaries?

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:27:52 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

It's easier for people to bend reality to fit their beliefs then to bend their beliefs to fit reality.

.

That is universally true.

Anyone who claims they are immune to it only deceives themselves.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:36:12 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:

It's easier for people to bend reality to fit their beliefs then to bend their beliefs to fit reality.

.

That is universally true.

Anyone who claims they are immune to it only deceives themselves.

I'm not immune but I regularly carve up my sacred cows.

If evidence was produced tommarow that demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the fossil record and provided a more sound explaination than evolution I would not dogmatically cling to a "belief."

When I was a child we didn't believe there was a ring system around Neptune. Now we know there is.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:38:25 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory. Evolution cannot be proven, it is a theory. Next.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:55:05 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory. Evolution cannot be proven, it is a theory. Next.

Your theory that one can PROVE gravity is a theory and I don't believe it.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:16:50 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory. Evolution cannot be proven, it is a theory. Next.

Scientific theories are considered standing until they're disproven. If they stand the test of time, they're considered scientific laws hence the "law of gravity". No one's disproven gravity yet, so until then it's a scientific law.

Even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster "intelligently designed" gravity, it only adds to the support of the Law of Gravity, doesn't do squat to prove an intelligent designer, Zeues.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:21:22 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe in gravity. It is only a theory.

All things are held in place by invisible fairies sent by Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Gravity can be ~~proven~~ observerd every day, it's ~~not a~~ a well accepted theory now called a law. Evolution cannot be proven, it is a theory. Next.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:23:58 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

The Biblical record ( I wasn't there at the beginning of time, so I can't provide an eyewitness report) makes NO assertions about the age of the geosphere - the ball of dirt and water we now sit on. So neither will I.

Yeah it does, "On the first day..." blah blah blah, then Adam and Eve, then about gazilions " Joesephs begat Josepeh juniors", and when they all died. Do a little CSI: Miami and you get the earth being just under 10,000 years.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:46:11 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory.

No, it cannot. We can see the effects of gravity. We can measure gravity. But so far, we cannot explain the mechanism of gravity. We can only mathematically describe its effects, we have no explanation for why those effects are what they are, or why the gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and not 6.67e-10 or 5.

Our best explanations of gravity ARE scientific theories. If we can build a complete, testable and verifiable theory that includes explanations of the mechanism of transmission of gravitational force, then once that complete theory is verified it may be considered a complete theory of gravity. Until then, we have only our good, well-founded scientific theories of gravity that do a great job of describing most of the interactions we see.

For an example of something about gravity that seems to be a bit off, look up the Pioneer 10 anomaly.

Jim

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:55:26 PM EDT

[#42]

Its about time...

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:57:08 PM EDT

[#43]

By the way, I managed to confuse myself internally (can a brain have a BSOD or a div/0 error?) and had to go look up the definition of a scientific law.

A scientific law describes (usually mathematically in addition to verbally) the effects of something; it is a model of reality. If you observe the initial conditions, and plug them into the law, the law should predict the outcome of the experiment.

A scientific theory explains the how and why of an effect or observation. A theory can and does often provide the explanation and support for a scientific law.

So, someone mentioned the "Law of Gravity". Newton's law of gravity is something like "all things attract each other by gravity everywhere in the universe". Einstein's general relativity is a theory which attempts to explain the why and how of things attracting everything else in the universe.

Now that I cleared that up for myself, I thought perhaps others would find it of use too.

Jim

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:57:34 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory.

No, it cannot. We can see the effects of gravity. We can measure gravity. But so far, we cannot explain the mechanism of gravity. We can only mathematically describe its effects, we have no explanation for why those effects are what they are, or why the gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and not 6.67e-10 or 5.

Our best explanations of gravity ARE scientific theories. If we can build a complete, testable and verifiable theory that includes explanations of the mechanism of transmission of gravitational force, then once that complete theory is verified it may be considered a complete theory of gravity. Until then, we have only our good, well-founded scientific theories of gravity that do a great job of describing most of the interactions we see.

For an example of something about gravity that seems to be a bit off, look up the Pioneer 10 anomaly.

Jim

Gravitons.

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:04:52 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gravity can be proven every day, it's not a theory.

No, it cannot. We can see the effects of gravity. We can measure gravity. But so far, we cannot explain the mechanism of gravity. We can only mathematically describe its effects, we have no explanation for why those effects are what they are, or why the gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and not 6.67e-10 or 5.

Our best explanations of gravity ARE scientific theories. If we can build a complete, testable and verifiable theory that includes explanations of the mechanism of transmission of gravitational force, then once that complete theory is verified it may be considered a complete theory of gravity. Until then, we have only our good, well-founded scientific theories of gravity that do a great job of describing most of the interactions we see.

For an example of something about gravity that seems to be a bit off, look up the Pioneer 10 anomaly.

Jim
Gravitons.

That is only one theory as to the nature of Gravity.

All the ones I have seen are pretty esoteric...multiple dimensions, string theory, etc.

And as KS_Physicist said, look up the Pioneer anomaly.

Here, I did it for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:47:27 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with "critically analyzing" evolutionary theory.

One doesn't have to mention intelligent design or other creationist stories in order to critique and analyze the dominant biological paradigm.

ETA: All mainstream ideas are worthy of critique and analysis. It is through critique and analysis that elevates some theories to become the dominant paradigm in a science.

Is it the hope of some that some weakness or unknown element in modern evolutionary theory will somehow elevate creationism or intelligent design? I'm not worried in the least.

Very good... I didn't know light bulbs in GA came with that much wattage.

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:07:08 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with "critically analyzing" evolutionary theory.

One doesn't have to mention intelligent design or other creationist stories in order to critique and analyze the dominant biological paradigm.

Actually, I hope that's how they go at this.

I don't want public schools teaching Biblical doctrine - they aren't really qualified to do so.

And the non-religious critical review of evolution can ONLY be a good thing, right?

And the non-religious critical review of Intelligent Design can ONLY be a good thing, right? At the same time as looking at Evolution? Not hardly, Intelligent Design will be blown out of the water so to speak. Much as you like to think that children's minds are mush, they do sometimes work, And any of the methods used to critically assess Evolution will only serve to illustrate the far greater problems with ID Theory.

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:22:54 PM EDT

[#48]

This is insane.

I think I'm gonna challenge the Pythagorean Theorem. I don't think triangles behave in the manner in which our "force-fed" and "liberally indoctrinated" children are being "ram-rodded" in "evil public schools."

It's just a theory, right?

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:52:38 PM EDT

[#49]

The whole ID fiasco is an excellent example of how you can boost your side of the debate simply by being clever in how you frame it, even when you've got no substance.

On the other hand, who is to say both sides aren't right?

Posted: 2/15/2006 7:26:32 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The Biblical record ( I wasn't there at the beginning of time, so I can't provide an eyewitness report) makes NO assertions about the age of the geosphere - the ball of dirt and water we now sit on. So neither will I.

Yeah it does, "On the first day..." blah blah blah, then Adam and Eve, then about gazilions " Joesephs begat Josepeh juniors", and when they all died. Do a little CSI: Miami and you get the earth being just under 10,000 years.

It don't take rubber gloves and an ultraviolet flashlight to figure that somewhere in that mix then, someone boned their sister.

(aah, digression.. One step further from topic, one more toward chaos.. My work here is done.)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Cue up your South Carolina jokes - Panel demands critical review of evolution (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us