Counting the errors in one section of the Origin of Life brouchure

by bohm 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • Podobear

    For me the word Evolution refers more to the Adaptation of the Species rather than its Origin. The Origin came from direct creation, the Evolution came by Adapting to the Environment.

    I agree with the comments made about weighting the arguments of others to suit their Creationist stance.. but, maybe the WT has a point..

    The THEORY of Evolution has never been upgraded from that status since its inception. It has not even been listed as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS.

    Can anyone explain why?


  • bohm

    podo: The THEORY of Evolution has never been upgraded from that status since its inception. It has not even been listed as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS.

    like germ theory or theory of relativity or the theory of gravity...

    theory dont mean what you think.

  • Podobear

    I am only a medic bohm.. I can't make vital decision based on Theory. Thanks anyway. Gravity is a fact I can work with.. as part of an orderly Universe made by a Designer (God or Creator if you will).. I can work with that too. I guess the discussion will go on and on here.


  • superpunk

    Gravity is a fact I can work with.

    Gravity is a theory, in the EXACT same way evolution is a theory. In short, scientists are continually revising their ideas about how and why gravity and evolution occur, but they are aware that gravity and evolution are continuing to occur no matter if we yet understand how or why. Please understand the difference between the FACT of evolution and gravity (i.e. they exist and occur constantly) and the THEORY of evolution and gravity (i.e. how and why they exist and occur constantly).

  • bohm

    podo: I am only a medic bohm.. I can't make vital decision based on Theory. Thanks anyway. Gravity is a fact I can work with..

    Superpunk allready said it. F=ma or E=mc^2 are only theories to, not facts.

    the words you confuse are hypothesis and theory, all you really need to do is read the wikipedia pages on those two words and you wont have to confuse them again. Since you are a medic and hence work with science, perhaps it would be good to get the most basic scientific terminology right.

  • BurnTheShips

    Life will turn out to have arisen by a natural process, not direct creation. It will prove to be the same process that drives life's differentiation itself.

    Mark my words, and wait and see.

    The evolutionary principle described by Darwin applies to more than biology.


  • sir82

    To help Podobear, maybe the following will help:

    Fact: If I drop a bowling ball it falls to the earth

    Theory: Gravity describes the process of how and why it falls

    Fact: Animal and plant species change over time; given enough time, new species appear

    Theory: Evolution describes the process of how and why these changes take place

  • Cadellin

    The confusion lies in the difference between a layman's definition of "theory," which is simply a best guess or unsubstantiated hypothesis, and a scientist's definition, which is, and this is from Carl Zimmer's excellent new textbook The Tangled Bank, "an overarching set of mechanisms or principles that explain a major part of the natural world...make sense of what would otherwise sem like an arbitrary, mysterious collection of data...[and is] supported by independent lines of evidence" (62). I think that last bit is the most important, IMHO.

  • PrimateDave

    It's a good thing that the ancient Jewish mythologies never attempted to explain gravity. Imagine what a mess that would be with Fundamentalists attacking Newton's theories and then Einstein's General Relativity. Of course, they would debunk "Newtonism" as a strawman, and then claim that it proves the Theory of General Relativity false.

    Interestingly enough, the theories on the origin of the Universe attempt to explain how and when gravity came into being along with the other fundamental forces currently recognized by science. Just because scientists have yet to explain exactly how the Universe came into being, or even create new Universes in the laboratory, does not mean that Quantum Physics and General Relativity are false. Likewise, Evolution is not false simply because the origin of the first life on this planet still remains a mystery, at least until someone can build a time machine to travel back 3 billion years and observe the event in progress.

    If someone want's to believe that his or her invisible friend in the sky made the Universe and then made the living things on this planet, that is his or her prerogative. Just don't assume everyone else believes in invisible friends who magically make things. "God," "Holy Spirit," and other kinds of "magic" are not explanations. They are "thought stoppers." To marvel at complexity is human. To make extraordinary claims about invisible beings is fiction. Or maybe theology. But it's definitely not science.

    To Creationists:

    If you find it hard to believe that the first life form "came about by chance," keep in mind that I find it hard to believe that a talking snake convinced a naked woman to eat a piece of fruit from a tree in a garden planted by an invisible superbeing who then couldn't find the woman or her husband because they hid when they realized they were naked.

  • Podobear

    Hey: thanks Peeps.. actually it was my reading of Wikepedia that prompted me to ask the question. For me, a theory is precisely that.. a working hypothesis is the next stage to an established Fact. Ipso Facto, Gravity is a Fact, the theory behind which is proven (or, is it boffins?). Similarly I view Evolution as a state of development rather than an acceptable explanation for the Origin of the Species.. that remains Theory, I don't see a working hypothesis and don't read many articles spouting the Fact of Evolution.

    Cheers anyways, bohm, Superspunk and Sir82 from

    Podo (a.k.a - on this one at least!)

Share this