Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  adamah

  Kate said-

  That is exactly how scientific discoveries are made, we have a theory, do an experiment. Some prove our theory some do not. That is what happens in a reasearch and developement lab.

  That's completely wrong, and actually serves as ironic proof that explains why Dawkins felt the need to write those pages...

  Kate, since you seem not to take Doctor Dawkins' word for it, here's a free PDF download from the National Center for Science Education that explains the difference between the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis', written by Eugenie Scott, a U.S. scientist who heads up the NCSE (an organization that advocates on behalf of science education in schools):

  http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/Evo%20vs.%20Creationism--2nd%20edition--Chapter%201.pdf

  Adam
• 

  Captain Obvious

  Umm no, sorry Kate. You might have to go read the chapter again. In your explanation, you would use the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is what you think might be proven by your research and experiments. Once it has become proven and can be repeatedly proven, you now have a theory.

  A theory is as proven and true as it gets. There's no point in disagreeing with this explanation of the word, Kate. The entire purpose of the chapter is to show the difference in how the scientific community uses the word versus how YOU use it.

  Tammy, gravity is theory.
• 

  GromitSK

  My understanding is that the theory in question is used to describe a process which, whilst it can't be fully observed occurring in practice, does leave evidence. There could be other theories which explain how we got here but they'd need to be supported by the evidence. The theory however isn't something airy-fairy and there is nothing in it which isn't supported by the known facts. There are a lot of facts which support evolution even if some of the steps are less well understood than others, some of these facts can of course be interpreted in different ways.

  To my mind, the theory of gravity is something different in that we can observe gravity in action. There isn't much doubt in practical terms about how it works, and none about whether it exists, and we can all go see it in action any time. The theory of gravity relates to how gravity is generated and makes predictions about how it should behave, which can be tested.

  Happy to be corrected.

  Ps though I don't like Dawkins' style and thought the God Delusion was a bit of a rant, the title referred to looks fine to me.
• 

  tec

  Just for clarification, not meaning to argue over gravity:

  http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Gravity is reality.

  Ignore it at your peril!
• 

  adamah

  The concept of gravity stems from a physical science (physics); hence it's applicability applies to ALL matter, living or not, under normal conditions (eg helium balloons and hot-air balloons are seemingly exceptions to the rule, although they're not violations of gravity, they just appear to be on the macroscopic level). Gravity is both a theory AND under normal conditions, a LAW.

  In contrast, evolution, while a theory, is NOT a law, since there's no rule in evolution that says that all species MUST evolve into other forms: some species haven't changed much over time, being more 'conservative' than others. Evolution will thus never be a "law", since it's a theory coming from the 'life sciences', AKA the biological sciences (the science of living matter), and it's NOT reflective of a fundamental property of all matter (like gravity is, and it applies to ALL matter, living and non-living alike).

  Hence the term "law" generally doesn't apply to anything outside of the realm of physics.

  Adam
• 

  tec

  Nice! Simple, direct, and to the point.

  This helps also:

  since there's no rule in evolution that says that all species MUST evolve into other forms: some species haven't changed much over time, being more 'conservative' than others

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  wearewatchingyouman

  The problem with calling evolution a "Scientific Theory" is that, simply, it is not one. A scientific theory must be able to be repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Of course the theory of evolution has never been confirmed through observation or experimentation. Thus, it is still just a hypothesis, albeit a fairly strong one, or just a plain old theory.
• 

  GromitSK

  Good explanation Adamah. One small point - I'm not sure it's true to say that gravity is also a theory, it is a fact as you say. There may be theories about gravity.

  I wouldn't say evolution is a fact although I do think there is a high probability it is a fact, especially compared to other hypotheses about how we got here. I might say evolution is a fact if I was better informed though :)
• 

  cantleave

  wearewatchingyouman - maybe educating yourself on the subject would help.