If evolution is 'only a theory' does that mean...

[Keith&Co.]

...creationists should be against the Death Penalty? And medical treatment?

I mean, that's a common cretinous objection to evolutionary theory, the idea that it's 'merely' a theory, as if that's a step in surety between 'made up shit' and 'a scientific law.'
But that process, offering up evolution as the best explanation we have so far for the evidence we've collected at this point.

Same thing the CSI techs do three or four times every episode, pointing the finger of guilt at one or another character as the best answer to the evidence they've collected so far.

And the same thing on the Doctor shows, diagnosing by matching known disease presentations to the symptoms we've detected. It's just a theory that it's a humour imbalance or whatever. Even if the patient responds to the treatment, that could possibly be a simple coincidence.

So everything the prosecutor submits to the Court is support for his or her theory. The Jury and Judge can do no more than agree or disagree with the theory, depending on how impressed they are with the evidence provided. If you're going to dismiss the whole of science's position on evolution because theories are unsound, you probably ought to resist convicting people on anything other than a detailed confession.
And if your car isn't running correctly, don't ask for a diagnostic. That's just collecting evidence for theorizing. Buy new.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But even creationists go about the day as if all those scientific "theories" were hardcore fact. An observer couldn't spot a difference between a rationalist and a creationist based on behavior. Religion and especially creationism are kinda like TV where people tune in to watch but no one ever goes there to live.

In that final analysis theorizing actually works. Creationizing actually does not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, yeah, just wondering if they can actually defend the inconsistency.
If not, just another reason to discount the objection.

 

[steve_bank]

Evolution is a theory that I would say is the best fit to all the evidence.

It can not be demonstrated that we evolved from simple self replicating structures. Christians use that to argue it could be wrong.

That's the way it goes.

On the other hand no one witnessed god winking the universe into existence.

 

[Opoponax]

Knowing what a scientific theory is would be helpful to them. They misuse the word and define it as hypothesis. I've hit my head against that brick wall too many times to bother anymore though.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Knowing what a scientific theory is would be helpful to them. They misuse the word and define it as hypothesis. I've hit my head against that brick wall too many times to bother anymore though.

Doctrinal creationists do not understand that a scientific theory is a conclusive model based on scientific evidence. For beginners they don't know what science and the scientific method is, despite their living by its laws everyday of their lives. I think its more an emotional hangup than anything.

 

[Lion IRC]

Evolution is creation in slow motion.
Not a 'theory' at all.

 

[bigfield]

Evolution is creation in slow motion.
Not a 'theory' at all.

So...Natural Selection is part of God's plan?

He could have planned better. Kinda looks like he just blew up a singularity without really knowing what it was going to do.

 

[steve_bank]

I disagree on conclusive. A model takes inputs and provides outputs within specified limits. Newtonian mechanics accurately allows us to go to the moon. Doesn't work in predicting black body radiation.

We have models for star formation and through spectral analysis can perform chemical analysis of distant stars. We have a model of how our star works. Non of it is provable in an experimental sense. Theories are the best fit to the available evidence at the time. There are no absolutes.

Creationist engineers I worked with compartmentalized science and religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I disagree on conclusive. A model takes inputs and provides outputs within specified limits. Newtonian mechanics accurately allows us to go to the moon. Doesn't work in predicting black body radiation.

We have models for star formation and through spectral analysis can perform chemical analysis of distant stars. We have a model of how our star works. Non of it is provable in an experimental sense. Theories are the best fit to the available evidence at the time. There are no absolutes.

Creationist engineers I worked with compartmentalized science and religion.

Something can be conclusive while still being open to improvement, being incomplete. What counts is evidence, and observation of natural phenomenon is evidence, even if that evidence did not derive from an experiment.

One cannot "theorize" that stars are really angels without having evidence for angels and how stars are in fact angels. Mormons like to say that bigfoot is biblical Cain. Is that a theory? Where's the evidence? What's the model and how do we test the model?

Creationist engineers compartmentalize religion because of emotions. That they comparmentalize is somewhat rational I suppose.

If something requires belief to be true than it isn't science, it's just woo.

 

[steve_bank]

I disagree on conclusive. A model takes inputs and provides outputs within specified limits. Newtonian mechanics accurately allows us to go to the moon. Doesn't work in predicting black body radiation.

We have models for star formation and through spectral analysis can perform chemical analysis of distant stars. We have a model of how our star works. Non of it is provable in an experimental sense. Theories are the best fit to the available evidence at the time. There are no absolutes.

Creationist engineers I worked with compartmentalized science and religion.

Something can be conclusive while still being open to improvement, being incomplete. What counts is evidence, and observation of natural phenomenon is evidence, even if that evidence did not derive from an experiment.

One cannot "theorize" that stars are really angels without having evidence for angels and how stars are in fact angels. Mormons like to say that bigfoot is biblical Cain. Is that a theory? Where's the evidence? What's the model and how do we test the model?

Creationist engineers compartmentalize religion because of emotions. That they comparmentalize is somewhat rational I suppose.

If something requires belief to be true than it isn't science, it's just woo.

This would be a thread on science, start one and I'll participate.

What AE said that was disturbing at the time was that there are no absolutes. There are no absolute refernces. SI units arer arbitrary. Your use of the word conclusive ends 9in metaphysics and a debate on meaning. In the late 19th century it was beloved by some science was at an end. Everything in science today says there are deeper realities we are as yet unable to detect.

Science is a repeatable experiment, no more or less. We do not directly measure an electron. We indirectly conclude via experiment there is a unit charge. Quantum models based on the electron and other particles yid predicable macro scale results. The operation of a bipolar transistor. Conclusive proof that model works in designing transistor's, not evidence an electron exists as we envision it or even exists at all.

The late Carver Meade said in an interview that je did not know if an electron exists, but he knew he could do useful things with the concept. That is my view.

Abd always correlation is not necessarily causation.

 

[atrib]

I disagree on conclusive.

It is as conclusive as anything can ever be. That evolution happens using the mechanism of natural selection and following the rules of Mendelian heredity is a foregone conclusion at this point. The finer details on the molecular aspects of evolutionary development is relatively new and awaiting major discoveries, as are the finer details on how the tree of life is to be drawn. But the fundamental concept of evolution has been tested for 150 years and found to be sound. The probability that our understanding of evolution is grossly in error is so vanishingly small that it can safely be disregarded.

We have models for star formation and through spectral analysis can perform chemical analysis of distant stars. We have a model of how our star works. Non of it is provable in an experimental sense. Theories are the best fit to the available evidence at the time. There are no absolutes.

Only if the definition of experiment includes the construction of full-scale stars in the lab, which is obviously impossible. We can perform other experiments that test the validity of spectral analyses and nuclear fusion in the lab and in computer simulations which achieve the same purpose.

Creationist engineers I worked with compartmentalized science and religion.

They do. I know a geologist who routinely writes reports describing the age and geologic history of soil formations for projects, but also believes that that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago and that all the fossils we have found are either forgeries, or were planted in the ground to test mankind.

 

[Jobar]

Creationist engineers I worked with compartmentalized science and religion.

They do. I know a geologist who routinely writes reports describing the age and geologic history of soil formations for projects, but also believes that that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago and that all the fossils we have found are either forgeries, or were planted in the ground to test mankind.

"Test"- for what, I wonder? A willingness to deny all the evidence of our senses, if some holy book says we should?

I presume all here have read Dawkins' article 'Sadly, an honest creationist"; if not google it, and check it out. The doublethink required would make Big Brother proud.

 

[Politesse]

...creationists should be against the Death Penalty? And medical treatment?

I imagine they would, if they were convinced that the Scriptures told them to be. Indeed, some Christians do oppose medical treatments, or at least certain medical treatments, on religious grounds.

 

[steve_bank]

As I am continuing regab I have been watching reruns of old TV series.

In Gunspoke the bible is routinely interjected by charaters to justify actions.

An eye for and eye, toth for tooth...revenge

In one episode a family patriarch would not allow a doctor to perform a simple life saving surgery because the bible says something about not cutting the skin.

Preachers each with their own interpretation of scripture often harmful. Zealots convinced god speaks to and through them. Faith healing and being in god's hands vs medicine.

And so on.