by hooberus 28 Replies latest jw friends
LOL @ Swan....Doc Watson and I were talking about the same thing. I think just below the sticker about evolution, they should slap another sticker in of the variety you posted. What I don't like about the sticker is it betrays such utter ignorance about even the meanings of the words theory and fact. Only someone with very scant scientific knowledge could write such a thing.
SNG
Oh, but evolution *has* been proven to occur. From talkorigins.org: "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. . . . "
No one (including Bible believeing scientists) disputes that "genetic characteristics of a population" can change over time. This is not the issue.
". . . Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact."
This is the bread and butter of the controversy.
There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking critically about any belief (scientific, religious),
If there is "nothing wrong with thinking critically about any belief" then why not endorse the sticker, which basically says this?
but this sticker is motivated by religious people who FEAR evolutionary science. They fear it because it challenges their faith.
I think that the sticker should be judged based on its words rather than on your perceived motivations of its endorsers.
Hoob,
All I can say is religion is on its way out, and I'm glad,, many in the christian camp want us to stay in the dark ages. Belief in the bible God,,that is in the image of man is getting harder and harder to accept as science shows the bible to be a book of fairy tales.
What I don't like about the sticker is it betrays such utter ignorance about even the meanings of the words theory and fact. Only someone with very scant scientific knowledge could write such a thing. -- Seattle Nice Guy
I concur.
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
It's not the same as ordinary use of the word theory:
Hooberus said:
:: Oh, but evolution *has* been proven to occur. From talkorigins.org: "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. . . . "
: No one (including Bible believeing scientists) disputes that "genetic characteristics of a population" can change over time. This is not the issue.
Until roughly the mid-1990's the young-earth creationist camp most certainly claimed that the "genetic characteristics of a population" could not change over time, and they still claim -- without any real evidence -- that such change is divinely limited, so it's very much an issue. The fact that the overwhelming evidence for evolution forced the YEC community (not really the "community", but the leaders, i.e., Henry Morris and his compatriots, who decide the views of the community, much like the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses sets the views of the JW community) to modify its views is a mixed blessing. It's good, in that it indicates that on occasion, real facts can get them to change their teachings (much as long-established and undisputable facts can even get Watchtower people to change their views), but it's not good in that it shows that the YEC community, much like the JW community, holds certain views not because intelligent and informed individual members have come to independent, reasoned conclusions, but because the community's leaders have come to certain conclusions, and the rest of the community blindly follows the leaders.
:: ". . . Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact."
: This is the bread and butter of the controversy.
Indeed it is, and as the above quote said, the evidence for historical evolution is simply beyond dispute. The only people who dispute it do so not for scientific reasons but for religious reasons. For example, the Hare Krishna's dispute modern notions of evolution because Hindu teaching is that humans have existed in their present form for billions of years, and so they marshall all sorts of 'evidence' to prove that "science is fallible" (as if no one knew this) and that mankind has indeed existed for billions of years. Unfortunately, much of the evidence set forth by these people is also set forth by YECs to prove that mankind has existed only for some 6,000 years. So who is an intelligent observer to believe? The Hare Krishnas or the YECs? How about accepting what trained scientists have to say?
Obviously I'm oversimplifying a bit, but the basics ought to be clear to intelligent readers: the standard theory of evolution rests on a firm foundation of interpretation of geological and biological evidence by tens of thousands of geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, biologists, etc. Alternative theories, such as are presented by Hare Krishna apologists and Christian Fundamentalists, rest on a foundation of obfuscation of solid science and promotion of any number of hare-brained claims about "man co-existing with dinosaurs" and so forth.
The simple fact is that solid science shows that the earth has existed for some 4.5 billion years, that microscopic life appeared on the earth at least as far back as 3.5 billion years ago, that macroscopic life appeared on the earth some 600 million years ago, and that huge amounts of extinction and of arising of new life forms has occurred over geological time. So, claims that all these things occurred in a few decades or hundreds of years as a result of "Adam's sin", etc, that took place beginning perhaps 6,000 years ago, fly in the face of solid science and therefore must be rejected by anyone who has claims to scientific objectivity.
Furthermore, YECs tend to obscure the fact that, in practice, a large fraction of scientists hold little opinion about "origins of life". Most scientists are well aware that almost nothing is really known about conditions in the early earth, and so they reserve judgment. Naturally, some scientists, ignoring more cautionary assessments of their peers, put out papers claiming that such-and-such is true, when it is still not well accepted. Science is, after all, a human endeavor and subject to all the failings of humans. But in the long run science is self-correcting, because some ideas are put through the ringer by huge numbers of scientists until they have stood the test of time.
:: There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking critically about any belief (scientific, religious),
: If there is "nothing wrong with thinking critically about any belief" then why not endorse the sticker, which basically says this?
Because the sticker is by no means a general statement of advice to think critically, but a thinly veiled attempt to insert "the wedge" of creationism into public school teaching. This notion of a "wedge" has been clearly set forth as a strategy by so-called Intelligent Design creationists under the guidance of Phillip Johnson.
:: but this sticker is motivated by religious people who FEAR evolutionary science. They fear it because it challenges their faith.
: I think that the sticker should be judged based on its words rather than on your perceived motivations of its endorsers.
The poster's perception of creationist motivations is absolutely correct. They fear evolutionary science because it makes Genesis into a story rather than a historical account, and that is fatal to the faith of Fundamentalist YECs. That's why they're called "fundamentalists".
And again, it's not simply the words on the sticker that are important, but the context in which they're used, and the purpose for which they're there. Which, of course, is to advance the creationist agenda.
AlanF
SNG,
Glad you liked my stickers. I don't know why people who are religious believe in junk science like electricity. Blasphemous in my opinion.
Patio,
I loved the cartoon.
Tammy
Until roughly the mid-1990's the young-earth creationist camp most certainly claimed that the "genetic characteristics of a population" could not change over time,
Please provide evidence to substantiate this assertion.
Patio,I loved the cartoon.
Tammy
The cartoon is not representative of the sticker (or the position of most creationist organizations that I am aware of).
The cartoon depicts an individual stating that "Evolution should not be taught in our schools!", . . . "because it's just a theory"
The sticker is not saying that evolution should not be taught in our schools, but that it is a theory which should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The cartoon is not representative of the sticker (or the position of most creationist organizations that I am aware of).The cartoon depicts an individual stating that "Evolution should not be taught in our schools!", . . . "because it's just a theory"
The sticker is not saying that evolution should not be taught in our schools, but that it is a theory which should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Hooberus,
Yes, the cartoon depicts someone saying that evolution shouldn't be taught in the schools. And that doesn't fit the exact situation of the sticker under discussion. But I still like the cartoon.
The cartoon does address the basic misunderstanding many people have about what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, and what a fact is in the context of science. All of science is a theory.
In science we make a hypothesis based on what we know and what is observable, and devise experiments to prove it. Sometimes we need to throw out the hypothesis, when it is proven wrong, and come up with a new one. Facts are determined by directly observable experiments and evidence. When we understand enough of the facts to support the hypothesis, we call it a theory. A theory is not directly observable. That is it's nature. But it is established as the way to explain the field.
"When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. " -- UC Riverside website
In science a theory is not a guess. In science a theory is not a supposition. In science a theory is not the same as when a detective standing in a room full of suspects and says "My theory is that it was Colonel Mustard with the knife in the kitchen."
Atomic theory is just a theory, because we can't directly observe many aspects of it. But the facts support it. We blow people to smithereens with it.
Electrical theory is just a theory. We believe we know what causes electricity, but again we can't directly observe it. We certainly can observe the facts related to it's use and harness it based on this theory in order to post to this thread.
So once again, all of science is a theory. It is our best explanation of the observable evidence of something that cannot be proved through direct observation. We can be pretty certain, though, that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, that things will fall down, not up, and that our world will work according to these basic theories.
So in that respect, the cartoon does apply. And I do think it is funny, although I haven't conducted any experiments to prove this hypothesis.
Tammy
