- Joined
- 22 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 205
It is a scientific fact - in line with the above definition I gave of what a scientificfact is. No reputable scientist or theolgist for that matter would disagree.
Last edited:
The theory (fact) of evolution
- Thread starter Apachegunface
- Start date
It is a scientific fact - in line with the above definition I gave of what a scientificfact is. No reputable scientist or theolgist for that matter would disagree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
and yet we play 'god' on a daily basis, we can create life and yet we can not comprehend something else creating it?
fixed
I am a Scientist. By what definition did you describe, I can't find it?
To become a scientific fact it must be irrefutable, it is not.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 970
Gaidin109 said:
I would say the opposite... We can not observe evolution happening (on a scale like what I assume you are referring to i.e. One organism eventually becoming a completely different one). However, natural selection has been observed. I think the debate is more whether natural selection on its own is enough to drive evolution, whether a god was required to drive evolution through natural selection or if God made everything and natural selection runs its course only within species.
why?
It does not fit scientific principle, so is not useful in scientific debate. However it does not mean it should not be debated.
I agree, I was just making the point that unless the theory at hand is completely irrefutable then it is not a fact.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 205
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[17]
this one
So you disagree with this? If so then you're no scientist and you shouldn't call yourself one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
the only possible answer is that he has no interest in discussing it and if everyone felt the same way we'd still be sat in caves wondering how to make the raw meat taste better.
You are confusing Evolution with Natural selection, which is a theory of the mechanism by which Evolution is acheived.
You will find I have already made this point.
In any meaningful way Evolution is a fact, but there are various theories as to the mechanism concerning Evolution. I agree with the Natural Selection theory, but I dont assume it to be universal fact.
the context in which H.J Muller was writing is also needed as he was comparing Evolution to Creationism. He also said "when I say fact, I mean that the probability is a high one." Its a philosophical question not a scientific one.
As I studied as a Physicist, I could argue the reality of the entire universe is open to question. The chief rule in science is Never Assume...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Quite the opposite in fact my misguided friend. Intelligent design, and it's analogues, would be the most liklely cause of us "sitting in caves wondering how to make raw meat taste better".
Q:Why is the sky blue?
A: God made it so.
Q: How did life evolve on earth?
A: God did it.
Q: Why did Jimmy die after drinking stagnant water?
A: It was his time to be with God.
Intelligent design is flawed as it's a scientific viewpoint that is unscientific, therefore it has no place in any debate unless we're discussing contradictions. I am sure if you or other proponents of such viewpoints actually checked for yourselves the supposed evidence, I use the term very loosely, then you too would agree with me that ID is not in any way sensible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
and yet we are where we are today because of belief (ancestral or otherwise) in intelligent design.
No, it is not a scientific view point and is useful in discussions, outside of science. Also very useful for helping to explain what science is and it's very large boundaries.
The fact that a few people want to see it as scientific is nether here nor there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
anyone who is unflinching and entirely devoted to their views is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with, precisely because they are unwilling to accept any potential fallibility in their views.