When failure to embrace what the scientific establishment currently believes in cases where it can produce no conclusive evidence results in a witch-hunt, the cause of true science is not served.
Recently, Christina Wilkinson, of St Andrew's Church of England school in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, came under fire for falling out of step with orthodoxy on the issue of the origins of life.
The Guardian reports that Wilkinson tweeted in response to London headteacher Tom Sherrington who urged teachers to stick to science when teaching young minds where life comes from: "Evolution is not a fact. That's why it's called a theory! There's more evidence that the Bible is true."
I am not here to argue for what Christina Wilkinson believes about the Bible, nor even merely to argue that she has the right to believe whatever she wants, but rather that the attacks against her – and insistence that she quieten down her Wrongthought – are born of a mentality with more in common with the excesses of the Cloth than with the advances of the Enlightenment.
[Continues.]
Wilkinson clearly realized she had tweeted in haste, and attempted to pacify the gathering crowd by issuing a statement saying: "I'd like to make it clear that we teach the full national curriculum in school and that our pupils receive a fully rounded education."
As a result, Wilkinson's attempts at clarification were not deemed sufficient, and there have been calls for her to resign.
Wilkinson is correct – at least in the first part of her initial statement: evolution is, objectively, a theory. It may be treated by the scientific establishment as a fact, but that does not make it one.
Theories – like thought experiments – have a place. The realm of theory is where the mind goes for an after-dinner glass of port and cigar and stretches out in a leather armchair in front of the fire and blows a few what-if-scenario smoke-rings around the sitting-room.
But scientific methods are where the evidence comes in. What such methods have in common is that conclusions are based on observation and experimentation. While exact methods vary depending on the field, the constant is: you can check; the findings are demonstrable and repeatable. This is what distinguishes law from theory.
Reputable, genuine scientists use both systems – and the world is much improved as a result.
The problem comes when those who presume to speak for science forget the distinction between theory and law, and simply attack those who have not forgotten it.
The secular priest Richard Dawkins chimed in that Wilkinson was misusing the word theory.
"Scientists call evolution a theory only in a special scientists' sense, which is NOT the same as the layman's 'tentative hypothesis'," he said.
He continued: "This is so often misunderstood that I now recommend abandoning the confusing word 'theory' altogether for the case of evolution. Evolution is a fact, as securely attested as any fact in science. 'We are cousins of monkeys and kangaroos' can be asserted with as much confidence as 'Our planet orbits the sun'."
I am not here interested in the rightness or otherwise of Dawkins' assertions. My point is that theories do not cease to be theories simply because Richard Dawkins recommends that they not be seen as such. There is either empirical evidence, or there isn't. And if there isn't, Dawkins' "recommendations" should not interest us if our allegiance is to science and its methods, rather than to Mr. Dawkins and his recommendations.
If you have proof: bring it. If you do not: acknowledge openly that you have theory – perhaps a well-honed, much loved theory, but a theory nonetheless.
But for Dawkins to claim in the absence of proof that he has a right to his theory greater than Christina Wilkinson – a teacher in a religious school – has to hers, places him rather than her in the role of ideologue.
The rest of the story can be read at https://www.rt.com/op-edge/331641-scientism-religion-new-heresy/
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:18PM
Christ on a cracker, it's a REEEEAAALLLYY slow news day at Soylent News: News for Fundies. Things that Matter.
Oh, sorry, wrong site! I got confused for a second due to the high quality of the submitted story.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:29PM
Either frame it into a discussion or just leave this nonsense out.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:36PM
I am also against these types of stories. There is nothing to learn here: the article is pathetic in its ignorance of any advances in biology and therefore evolutionary theory made since, oh, the mid nineteenth century, not to mention ignorance of the basic way science works. It's a polemic that could've been written in 1900, a moldy oldy.
Stop oppressing me with your science! I mean scientism! -- word underlined by my spellchecker BECAUSE IT IS NOT A REAL WORD
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:24PM
Look, if you don't like a story, DON'T CLICK. It's that easy. Rather than bitching about what was posted, how about submitting something you deem more worthy?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:29AM
Mr. McGrew, how would I know I didn't like the story UNLESS I clicked and read it?
Please master the concept of causality before you tell me to do something impossible.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:42AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:49PM
You do know that the eds intentionally pass poorly supported stories through occasionally for you lot to properly rip on, yes? Hopefully that bit of information will cut down on all those "whoosh"-ing noises you keep hearing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:43PM
Can the next revision of the site include modding stories? Harmless fun.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:27PM
Sounds fun to me and it would annoy the eds. You got my vote.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:16PM
Hahah, no. We get enough bad stories added organically when the submissions list runs dry.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:57PM
Hey, if it's a lefty hugbox safe space you crave, I've got just the site for you. [slashdot.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:26PM
I got confused for a second due to the high quality of the submitted story.
You're just a dirty flat-earth denier. Burn heathen!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:49PM
I would simply point something out, which before we get the ad hominems I'm an atheist NOT a "fundie" but have we all forgotten the Steady State Theory [wikipedia.org]? For several years that was considered no less of a "fact" until we found the cosmic background radiation.
So let us not forget that theories CAN change based on new evidence and when you start letting politics or biases treat theories as laws that cannot be debated or argued? Then you are no longer doing science, simple as that.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:10PM
Hoyle's "Steady-State Theory" was not considered a fact. Nor is the "Big Bang Theory" as Hoyle derisively called it. Hoyle's theory was widely accepted as the theory that best described/explained the facts we had. When new facts (Penzius and Wilson's discovery was the coup de grace, but not the only facts) were found, another theory which better described/explained the facts was accepted.
Steven Jay Gould explained this quite well WRT Evolution:
The theory of evolution may not be the best way to interpret or describe the facts we have, it's just the best theory we have right now.
Even so, the fact of evolution is clear to see in the results of all manner of experiments and research.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:20AM
While your facts are wrong, your approach is excellent. It just needs to be rigorously applied, which is extremely difficult.
1) The steady state theory was always a minority view, rather similar, in fact the to current theory of cyclic collapse and rebound. (Perhaps that's no longer popular?)
2) Schools are always terrible at teaching epistomology, probably because most teachers are terrible at it. They are attached to theories as if they were facts. Facts are (purported) observations. Theories are how we organize those observations. Facts should be unchanging and incontrovertable, but nothing is perfect. There are experimental errors, there are undetected interferences, etc. So even facts need to be handled carefully.
3) Schools are designed, and often required, to teach the "True Correct Answer", when there is no such thing. There are only estimates of high and low probability. If you see an apple in front of you, it may turn out to be an eraser. Or a hallucination. Those may well be extremely low probability events (in your estimation), but they should always be considered as possibly what's really out there.
I *do* think that schools could teach the distinction that I have made between fact and theory, and the limitations involved in deciding that something is a fact. I also think that any school that did teach that would be likely to lose it's funding, and possibly be investigated for misappropriation of public monies.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:04PM
Come to pipedot where every day is a slow news day
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:29PM
Seconded.
As a meta thing, I prefer articles about technology and technology policy.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:14AM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:02AM
That's why this place exists.
The previous use of "audience" by Timmy at the other site completely missed that point.
It's reassuring when other Soylentils have already made the points that I had in mind before I opened the thread.
All that's left is to mention the word "hypothesis".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:19PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:28PM
Not all Christians, just the dumb fundamentalists. You don't speak for all of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:54PM
Aww, you don't want to be tarred with the same brush? So then start rebuking those that are misusing the words of your god. Non action is complacency. No you're not going to shut the fundamentalists up, but your dissent will help diffuse the power fundamentalism has on others who are susceptible to fundamentalism's misinformation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:00PM
So you're saying that all Muslims are terrorists? Good to know tbh fam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:30PM
I believe I just did, Bozo.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:21PM
Lovely to see Mr. A. Coward arguing with himself!
(I presume he's male because of the Latin "-us" ending in his name.
If female, wouldn't she be Anonymoa Coward?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:22PM
Nah, man, the SJWs hate Dawkins as much as the creationists do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:35PM
But for Dawkins to claim in the absence of proof that he has a right to his theory greater than Christina Wilkinson – a teacher in a religious school – has to hers, places him rather than her in the role of ideologue.
Is this ignorant buffoon really claiming that the Neo-darwinian synthesis is as shakily supported as creationism? That's all I really need to know about him; he's either a religious nutter or one of those relativists who shy away from ever taking a stand on anything because it might cause offense. Evolution is, in common language, a fact. It's beyond serious doubt at this point. The word "theory" when used by non-scientists is almost always done as a rhetorical dirty trick to confuse lay-persons into thinking the evidence is weaker than it is.
We have proof. We DID bring it. You either haven't taken the time to learn it, or--more likely--you don't care to because you'd rather believe in the burning bush. You're welcome to it.
(Score: 2) by NullPtr on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:45PM
> But for Dawkins to claim in the absence of proof that he has a right to his theory greater than Christina
> Wilkinson – a teacher in a religious school – has to hers, places him rather than her in the role of ideologue.
Well, no, UK law does that. For some reason, it says that schools must teach science and must not teach creationism.
And the reason for that is that one is correct, and one is made up bollocks.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:29AM
But you are, in my language, improperly distinguishing between a fact and a theory. Facts are specific observations. Theories are frameworks about how we organize those facts. So evolution *IS* a theory, and not a fact. It is an organizing framework that explains a multitude of facts.
You should also not that observations, i.e. facts, can be in error. This is one reason why a theory cannot be overthowrn by a single inconsistent fact. (Mental inertia is another reason, but that one is more problematic.)
You may note that my use of the terms is consistent in detail, if not in emotional tone, with the common linguistic use of the terms. The reason is that few people put the effort into constructing consistent theories, so they have no idea of the difficulty and skill involved. The is also the dunning kruger effect, where people who have never performed a task misestimate their ability to adequately perform it. But I believe that the common linguistic usage that I have identified is the correct one, and the missing element is the hypothesis, i.e. a theory that has not received reasonable testing.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:36PM
"I am not here to argue semantics. I'm just saying that I'm defining something very precisely to suit my needs and forcing everyone to concede my point or be called a liar. You see, it is called Evolutionary Theory, because I call it that, and as we know, a theory is unproved and just a theory."
Well, you run with that. Gravity is just a theory. Electricity is just a theory. Just keep in mind that the whole basis of modern biology and medicine is built upon the foundation of evolutionary biology (with 150 years of empirical evidence), but it is funny (in a sad way) how when these "evolution is just a theory" types have their asses on the line, pretty much all of them will abandon their principles and go with that evolutionary medicine [gocomics.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:39PM
^^ Nailed it
(Score: 2) by xpda on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:40PM
^^ Nailed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:36PM
There are many theories in science. One of the most popular ones, whether you believe in it or not, is gravity. Yup, that's right, gravity is "just a theory". If you don't believe in gravity then just float away.
There are many others, but you can't discount them as "just a theory" if you believe in gravity.
(Score: 4, Touché) by julian on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:46PM
I believe the invisible, infinite, thumbs of god push every particle towards each other in accordance with the inverse square law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:24PM
Thumbs? You call those Noodly Appendages "thumbs"?
What is true is this: The "god of the gaps" argument will never, ever, go away, because as recent results have been showing we're coming up against the limits of what physics will be capable of telling us. As in, there is demonstrably unobservable matter/energy at work, and demonstrable limits to our understanding of the details of how certain subatomic particles interact.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:33AM
What is true is this: The "god of the gaps" argument will never, ever, go away, because as recent results have been showing we're coming up against the limits of what physics will be capable of telling us. As in, there is demonstrably unobservable matter/energy at work, and demonstrable limits to our understanding of the details of how certain subatomic particles interact.
That's what she said.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:06AM
Currently unobservable, until new technologies are developed.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:19PM
Wrong. Here are some questions that are not only currently unobservable, but will never be observable as determined by the same laws of physics that have been demonstrated time and time again:
1. What caused the Big Bang? No matter or energy in the universe can answer that one, because whatever it was is outside of the universe.
2. What's going on inside of a black hole? No way of knowing that one either, because anything that goes into a black hole never comes out again.
3. What determines exactly where in an orbital an electron will end up when it's excited (i.e. hit with a photon and pops up an orbital)? A recent paper argued pretty convincingly that a solution to that question is a logical impossibility.
That's not to say I've proven atheism wrong. Of course I haven't: The only thing that would do that would be an observed repeatable demonstration of something that could only be described as a deity interfering in the universe. But there is pretty substantial evidence that science is never going to be able to tell us all there is to know about the universe.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:01PM
You're right of course, but there's an important point you might be overlooking which is that there *are* answers to those questions, they just aren't satisfying to our intuition or expectations--but the universe doesn't owe us an explanation which satisfies the mammalian brain. Finding out that there's no answer to some questions is itself an answer. Our technology did allow us to observe enough to get an answer, the answer was just a disappointing dead end.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:36PM
The Big Bang is not currently unobservable matter or energy. The matter and energy from it are observed all the time. You've moved the goalposts by now including "unobservable questions". For the black hole, perhaps someday someone will make a gravitational wave detector with the resolution to observe the interior of a black hole, or come up with something else to do it that hasn't been conceived of yet. We're presently doing things that were considered provably impossible a decade ago. Determining where an electron will go is outside the purview of observation; it's prediction. Can you observe where it went? Then we're good.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:52AM
It's not just the "God of the gaps". There's God of the Virtual Machines or Universe Simulations or MMO argument too.
Trying to use this World's laws and logic to prove that there is no Creator is as silly as someone trying to use the rules and information of the Pacman universe to prove there was no Programmer that created the Pacman universe.
Within the Pacman universe there is no proof or information that there was a Creator at all, in fact there is no need for one - it could exist for eternity. But outside the Pacman universe, there's a fair amount of information and logic that indicates there was at least one Creator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man#Development [wikipedia.org]
The question to ask is- does it matter and is it relevant? And whether the God of the religion in question should be followed. Even if a god is not the Creator, there might be reasons to follow him according to the rules of the "game", or _not_ of course ;).
For example there are many gods in World of Warcraft and even a Creator God: http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/God [wikia.com]
However the in-game account of the Creator God doesn't really resemble the Blizzard Development team does he? Maybe the Blizzard Development team are not averse to being worshipped by the players ;)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:26PM
Not funny, Julian. Not funny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:17PM
Actually, nobody knows what gravity is. Is it a particle? A warping of space/time? Entanglement on a large scale?
We only all agree it exerts a predictable force. Disagreeing over the mechanism is not the same as disagreeing over the existence of some effect or force. Thus, it's probably a poor analogy for this topic since the mechanism is what's disputed, not the results.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:49AM
It is a good analogy, a very good one actually.
Both gravity and evolution are fact. They are observed all the time.
They also both have theories explaining how they work. The difference is that the theory of evolution is pretty complete, where as the theory of gravity has big holes.
So, if you want to believe in only one of them, you should believe in evolution, as that's the most complete one. Besides, who wants to believe in gravity anyway? Makes floating much harder.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:49AM
Bad example. All the nerds are still arguing about gravity. We can observe an effect and give it a name but explain it? Oh Hell no, and if you disagree please produce your wisdom for all too see. An easy peasy Nobel Prize awaits you for a web posting! Easier to obtain than Obama's!
Gravity doesn't exist, everything just sucks. An explanation just as good as any chrome dome's blackboard of gibber jabber.
Not a knock on science, as a species we have only been seriously trying to figure out the universe for a blink of an eye on the big timescale, patience is called for.
Which is the whole point of the argument behind this article. Scientists getting all arrogant and believing they have THE answer and demanding everyone else be declared WRONG and banished from polite society. Not even close, science as we currently know it is nowhere even close to being in a position to even ask the big questions. Heck, it isn't even in a position to know what the big questions are. But few people have the humility to say "I don't know" so scientists, being human, decided they could jump ahead and declare they have the answers, they can use the power of Science! to answer Life, the Universe and Everything. This is not science, it is Scientism.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:39PM
evolution is, objectively, a theory.
It is also, objectively, an observed FACT.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:44PM
Honestly, I shouldn't even be commenting on yet more FUCKING FLAMEBAIT this week.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:53PM
Meh, you've got the karma to burn, same as me. Might as well spend some of it when it's entertaining to do so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:06PM
Well, maybe she has a point. Clearly I share a common ancestor with moths, and not apes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:09PM
DeathMoth
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:20PM
'Theory' is sometimes used very sloppily in common language, as an opposite to 'fact' but that is NOT how scientists of any discipline use the word, and it's not how well-educated people of any sort *should* be using it.
In this case, 'evolution' is both a fact and a theory - the fact that evolution occurs is easily observed and no theory is involved in that.
The *theory* (or arguably *theories* as this is not monolithic and does change to some degree over time) is simply the accepted scientific *explanation* as to *why* evolution occurs.
The theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are different but related things, both commonly referred to in shorthand as simply 'evolution.'
Now, that understood, it was actually a pretty ignorant and cringeworthy comment to make. But let's not join the dark side and start persecuting people for making ignorant comments. Answer if you feel so compelled, sure, tell this person she's wrong, explain concisely how she is wrong, sure, but then drop it. Creating an atmosphere of fear, really making people afraid to open their mouth and say something wrong, doesn't lead to correcting the wrong understandings - it only prevents communication from occurring.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HiThere on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:38AM
No. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. It is a theory which explains a multitude of facts.
Facts are observations. Theories are organizing frameworks. They are different *KINDS* of thing. It has been loosely and incorrectly stated that evolution has been observed. This isn't true. What is true is that, e.g., it has been observed that under certain conditions a particular strain of bacteria when exposed to certain doses of antibiotic yielded descendants that were relatively immune to the actions of that antibiotic. Those were facts. They fit smoothly into the framework of evolution.
But facts and theories are different orders of being. If you were programming in C++ I'd compare it to the difference between an array of doubles and a templated push-down stack class. The stack is implemented, possibly by an array, which might be doubles. It is not an array of doubles. The operations that can be performed are different, and it can be instantiated in many different ways.
If you were programming in Java I'd compare it to the difference between an interface and an implementation of a class. Same basic idea. And a really important and necessary difference to understand.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:49PM
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:50PM
How did this get posted here? If it would've just stuck to the initial Summary, where a teacher pulls a boner and people were horrible to her, and that should stop, then absolutely, I agree. But then to try and reframe the concept of a theory, and beg for "proof"...That's where it stops belonging on this page. We've been through this argument already; if you choose not to understand it, then go please go read it again more slowly; then ask better quality questions in a better forum for that sort of thing.
(Score: 2) by Natales on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:55PM
Regardless of the actual story being told here, this article was really bad, poking in all directions to incite fire storms (i.e. using an expression like: "secular priest Richard Dawkins").
The different meaning of the word "theory" in colloquial English and its use in science has always been one of the most contentious issues when trying to explain important concepts, discoveries and advances in the understanding of our surroundings. Dawkins himself has been proposing the scientific community to embrace a new word that better describes the difference: Theorum [rationalwiki.org], which to me makes a lot of sense. We would have much less conflict if we would just adapt the language to better describe a concept. For a language that makes up words every day ("rubbernecker" anyone?) that should not be hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:04PM
If you're going to quote meme wikis then why not go all the way [encyclopediadramatica.se]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:35PM
Yeah, hold on, before I trust that RW link I gotta check that Ryulong and his fanboys didn't edit it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:02PM
A theory will always be a theory.
A law will always be a law.
A theory will never become a law.
A law was never a theory.
A theory is not the opposite of a fact.
A theory can be a fact.
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. For example, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describe the motion of the planets. However, they do not explain why they move the way they do. If scientists only formulated scientific laws the universe would be described very well but still unexplained.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theories actually explain why things are the way they are. This is where a lot of confusion can happen. In normal everyday usage the word "theory" can be used to describe a guess or a hunch, but that is not what it means when used in scientific terms. A scientific theory has been built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Theories are what science is for.
The word fact is most often used to describe an observation. But it can also be used to describe something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is really no reason to keep testing it or looking for more examples. There is nothing that prevents a theory from being a fact.
Lets work with an example. There is a natural phenomenon of gravity. You can observe it, bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the centre. Then there is the theory of gravity, it explains the phenomenon of gravity based on observation, physical evidence and experiment.
Laws, theories, and facts can change with better data. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton. However the accumulation of more evidence will not cause a theory to develop into a law. Theories are the goal of science.
If you wish to develop a new theory you must also take into account the Correspondence Principal. The Correspondence Principal states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. For example, Newton's laws and Einstein's Relativity give the same answers in ordinary conditions, they only give different answers in extreme conditions such as near the speed of light, refining the accuracy of the GPS system, or calculating the orbit of Mercury (none of which Newton could confirm by experiment). Therefore, if you wish to develop a new theory of gravity, one that allows for faster than light lets say, it must still give the same answers that the relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that are accurate to quite a few decimal points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:42PM
Right. "Theory", like many words in the English language, has more than one meaning. So when someone attempts to discredit evolution by calling it "just a theory", they are making a verbal fallacy by substituting one meaning of the word with another.
Using a different word might help with this specific case, but this sort of problem will always occur with arguments based on human language. Education about what words mean and what makes a solid argument might help, except the problem here is with the educators. I'm not sure if we can do much better than diligently explaining what the words mean when encountering such an argument. This might not convince the ones making such arguments, but it might help the people hearing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:22PM
Scientology
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:28PM
I'm convinced that you have to use faith-based arguments in these "discussions".
The creationists consider all of the scientific evidence as just an elaborate hoax by the all-mighty to "test our faith" or something. Or, to put it another way...
"It is the creationists who blasphemously are claiming that God is cheating us in a stupid way." -- J. W. Nienhuys
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sea on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:30PM
I notice that these comments here are preoccupied with the distinction between theory and fact. Whenever this situation occurs, that seems to be the overwhelming response. Hordes of people arguing the definitions of theory and fact. Why? That's not the problem. This is some kind of unusual mental detour on both sides. Let's think about the actual situation, and the real problem that we need to talk about:
The headteacher believes X. As far as we can tell, there's an enormously strong case to be made that (not X) is true.
Here are the things we should be debating, not endlessly reiterating the definitions of theory and fact:
* Does this imply that the headteacher is not qualified to teach? (Or whatever it is that headteachers do)
* Should the headteacher resign or be replaced with one who believes (not X)?
Debating these two depends on answering the following:
* Is a person who believes (X) capable of teaching (not X) well?
To everyone busy reiterating 'This is what a theory is..this is what a fact is', please shut up. We have actual discussion here to make, and you're in our way.
-- sea
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:03PM
To everyone busy reiterating 'This is what a theory is..this is what a fact is', please shut up. We have actual discussion here to make, and you're in our way.
So we're supposed to not address the argument presented in the summary?
(Score: 1) by sea on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:42PM
You should realize by now that arguing over definitions is fruitless. There's never an end to it and it produces nothing useful.br>
However, the questions I've posed, which can also be derived from the summary, actually have insightful answers and create real progress when debated.
Pick which one you want to spend precious time on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:14AM
However, the questions I've posed, which can also be derived from the summary, actually have insightful answers and create real progress when debated.
I disagree.
Here are the things we should be debating, not endlessly reiterating the definitions of theory and fact:
* Does this imply that the headteacher is not qualified to teach? (Or whatever it is that headteachers do)
Who cares what some bible-thumping, limey whore is qualified to do other than use her orifices to pleasure men?
* Should the headteacher resign or be replaced with one who believes (not X)?
That's a question for the bible-thumpers who run the bible-thumping school where she sucks^W works.
Debating these two depends on answering the following:
* Is a person who believes (X) capable of teaching (not X) well?
Bible-thumpers will thump bibles. Whether they are capable of other things is irrelevant, since thumping the bible will always be their priority.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:21AM
So we're supposed to not address the argument presented in the summary?
It's a red herring. I know there's a fair number of people here who don't like it when I dismiss arguments simply because they are fallacies. This is why. It's a waste of your time to argue over stuff that ends up being completely irrelevant to the real debate.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:09PM
Let me see ....if i put context to X and "not X" how does it sound...or does it answer your questions...let X = Neo-nazism and (not X) = History
Its like asking Will a practicing Neo-Nazi be a good teacher of the "History of Slavery" or "History of Jewish people across time" ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:11PM
I think it is clearly against public interest to teach something that is objectively false.
Even if you wish to argue that an adult ought to be able to reject false beliefs, these are kids. They're not capable of such things - at least not consistently, without warning, and without great mental effort (which is a failing of the educational system in general, but she's clearly not trying to get kids to think critically and rationally). There's plenty of adults who can't do that - and I would actually say *most* adults are not capable of rejecting a false belief that they previously assumed to be true (as evidenced by: homeopathy treatments, global warming denial, church attendance, and the re-election of every two-term president within living memory).
If she can and will teach the truth, that is fine - it is necessary that we tolerate ideas that we consider wrong, as long as it harms none but the idea-holder. But if your belief in X requires you to teach X to people who really should not be taught X, you should not be allowed to teach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:29PM
Personally, I think if you're looking for an argument that a teacher isn't fit to teach, "not smart enough to pick up a fucking dictionary" is a pretty good place to start.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:43PM
WHY did this idiot and his nonsense get posted here?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:55PM
The proof is all around you and even you are proof of evolution. What more proof does anyone want?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:06PM
Well, most people are. There's a few that de-evolved. Politicians for example.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @09:56PM
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution is a function of something capable of self-replication.
Oh God, more Twitter bullshit.
It is a fact, that's why we made theories based off of it. Atomic theory. Germ theory.
Fine. Provide it. Show me where the waters for the Flood came from. Show me the foundations upon which the Earth rests. Explain why one universe was created in two different orders by beings with different names. Explain how both Abraham and Isaac lived oddly similar lives, down to both lying to a guy named Abimelech about being married to a blood relative.
Is there an organizer of this witch hunt?
Give me five minutes and Youtube and I'll get you a bunch of videos from a guy who thinks space is a conspiracy - you can use it to "round out" the astronomy portion of science class.
If she were aruging that evolution isn't a fact because it blasphemes the will of Allah, would you be calling for her resignation or supporting her, I wonder?
So neither of you can read a dictionary. Great.
No, those are ass-pulls. Or maybe hypotheses if you're feeling generous. Not theories, which require a basis of fact. This is like watching someone insisting that all socialists who love their country are in favor of Nazis, because they are pro-national socialists.
Like the Lenski experiment.
No. That's what distinguishes law from theory in that same part of your head where the fairies live. Again, GERMS.
Oh, and now we have the "atheism is a religion" canard. Christ, he's not even an original creationist.
Of course you're not, because if he's right he blows your entire premise out of the water.
And there is. That's what he was saying. Did you actually read into this or do you just assume that the entire sciences section of the library is books filled with "MWAHAHA! JEBUS IS EBIL!"
Lenski experiment. Superbugs. THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. The facts which are required to have a theory. Your turn to bring the proof.
The Youtube evangelicals have been calling it "Evolutionism" for years - try to keep up with the times, sunshine.
Is this guy a flat Earther? He sounds like a flat Earther.
And yet you're the one acting like you know everything.
Clearly you've never heard Dawkins speak on... well, most topics. He admits there's a ton he doesn't know.
Ah, yes. Only the loser wants to call it a tie.
Frogs fell from the sky. Frogs are rain. Frogs fell from the sky. Frogs are rain. Frogs fell from the sky. Frogs are rain. So, sorry, I was just trying your method of argumentation of repeating a random claim over and over again without evidence. Have I won yet?
And when we do, you say "it's just a theory"!
Who did Dawkins threaten? You've compared him to murderers and torturers. And then you dare to claim HE makes assertions without proof.
Whatever. I'll be over here when you're done punching that strawman.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:07PM
There is "theory" as used by scientists like Theory of gravitation by Newton
Or the Theory of Relativity by Einstein and the Theory of Evolution by Darwin.
Then there is "theory" as in "I have a theory that the sky is blue because our blood is red"...
Now the latter is not even a theory in the scientific sense ...it is just a wild hypothesis based on to unrelated observations.
So creationism and bible based statements is part of the latter ...so let us not mix the 2 together ...
Scientific method is well defined and The theory of Evolution stands because it stands all the stages of that method ...just like the Theory of General Relativity so far....
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:10PM
Nice summary, wraps everything up quite neatly:
Science does not need to be defended because it can demonstrate its proofs. Scientism – like the dogmas of the Catholic Church before it – cannot, which is why it must threaten.
Doubtless, the Church, science – and even Scientism – have produced their brilliant men. But the question is not whether Dawkins and his conclave are brilliant. The question is whether they can meet the requirements of the discipline they claim to submit to, and the short answer in this case is – as it stands – they cannot.
And the shame of it is, that by the use of dogma-driven tactics, the true scientific method is cheapened by those who claim loudest to support it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:24PM
"Scientism" is, in more than 99 of any 100 cases I encounter it, a snarl word thrown around by people who lack not only scientific knowledge but also training in philosophy and logic.
I have to say this, though: you are NEVER going to get through to a creationist, a fundie, or a fundie creationist with science because their problem is not one of scientific fact; it is onf pf philosophy, specifically epistemology. These people need to be engaged with on a level way, way deeper than science; we're trying to solve a problem that needs to be done in raw machine code with a C++ program, to use a crude analogy.
I have spent almost a decade training myself in counter-apologia, religious studies (with emphasis on the Abrahamic corpus), comparative religion/mythology, and various Christian systematic theologies. The best thing you can do is to guide the opponent through his or her very lowest-on-the-hierarchy beliefs and point out where they're wrong. Where WE go wrong is by trying to attack the massive ivory towers these people build rather than point out that said towers are on a foundation of mud and watery bullshit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:40PM
you are NEVER going to get through to a creationist, a fundie, or a fundie creationist
Checkmate funDIEs! [reddit.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:45AM
I was about to ask if they have actually been on the internet at all. But you put it into perspective quite nicely. Wow that board is 'amazing'. It is basically a board designed to be bigoted.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:17AM
Correct. Creationists' issue is not with Evolution specifically, it is with science. They don't understand science. Trying to show that Creationism is bunk and Evolution had tons of supporting evidence gets you nowhere. Instead, they need to hear that scientists provisionally accept that what we perceive is reality. There could be a deeper supernatural reality underlying everything we see, but there is no way to know. There are infinitely many supernatural explanations. Hit them with a few examples and they'll begin to see. For instance, could God have created the Earth 7 years ago, complete with people who think they are 20 plus years old? Sure He could, He's omnipotent isn't He? How then do we know that he didn't? We don't!
Science takes nothing on faith, and is therefore not a religion.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:56PM
I'd say it's not that they don't understand science, it's that they don't understand Christianity correctly.
Why do they believe what they do? Well, once upon a time, all Christians were united in belief (until 1500, nearly all Christians were Catholic or Orthodox with beliefs that 99% overlap, and were divided due to primarily political reasons instead of theological ones). Under these two forms of Christianity, there are religious dogmas that relate primarily to spiritual things, the existence and nature of Jesus, the Church, and the sacraments. These forms of Christianity are not opposed to science except where the science is dangerous (Nuclear Weapons, medical procedures that alter or control reproduction in various ways) or oversteps it's bounds. As such, Catholicism has a long history of clerics who discovered many truths of science (In Galileo's case, he couldn't actually prove his case, and was punished for making an ass of himself).
With the rise of Protestantism, the tenant of Christianity that the Church had authority given by God was taken away, and replaced by the belief that God had given us a book that has all of the truths we need, so that Christians only have to read the book to know the truth. Not every form of Protestantism has carried this truth to it's logical conclusion, but a little over a century ago, some Protestants were concerned that some other forms of Protestantism were compromising on certain beliefs, and so they articulated a series of fundamental dogmas that included belief in a one week creation. So now, this extreme variant of Protestantism, which is primarily present in the U.S. but also highly active in missionary evangelization in third world countries, is at war with any world view which threatens to destroy/disprove their dogmas because they would then have to consider what that would mean for their understanding of their religion.
But these people are not fundamentally anti-science in all ways, but only specifically in ways that contradict their beliefs. They contest teaching evolution in schools, because they don't want to have another authority figure contradicting what they say at home. If the children examine the issue, they will possibly come to the conclusion that their parents are wrong on religion, reject it, and reject anything of positive value that may come out of it as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:42PM
Creationism/Intelligent Design has been criticized as both bad science and bad religion. Through weak faith, these people have painted themselves into a corner of illogic, so to speak. Their own faith is actually based on pseudo-scientific proofs and evidence that miracles happened, and therefore God exists and loves us, and so on. Creationism is an excellent example of this problem. They base their faith on Creationism being correct. The watchmaker idea-- that the existence of a watch is proof that there is a watchmaker-- they find very compelling. Then science shows that no, complex systems can evolve from the simple, no need for a creator, and how do they respond? By making complete asses of themselves and mangling or outright rejecting science. They think this simple idea wrecks the foundation upon which their faith rests, and calls into question their religion. They missed the point that their faith should never have been founded on "mud and watery bullshit". Some don't see any way out of the wet paper bag they're stuck in, and resort to force, as if an idea is a thing that can be defeated, and violence is the means. They try to control all thought on the matter, to censor those subversive ideas, not understanding that ideas cannot be fought in that fashion.
Galileo's troubles are another excellent example of the problem. In his day, the "fact" that the Earth was the center of the universe was the basis of a lot of people's faith. The Church was heavy into astronomy, funding observatories, and why? They'd put themselves into a trap. Some really expected observations of the heavens to provide proof that Christianity was Truth. They'd set themselves up as the ultimate source of truth, and could not refuse the challenge of new ways to test that. Could also be that they were fighting astrology, trying to keep any lingering vestiges of Paganism from gaining any traction. Then observations very inconveniently provide data best explained by a heliocentric model, and suddenly the status of Earth as the center is called into doubt, and these people who'd based their faith on the issue go berserk. Why that didn't happen earlier, to Copernicus, I'm not sure. Maybe they were able to blissfully ignore him, keep the flock satisfied by pretending Copernicus and heliocentrism weren't relevant. Today, almost no one is the least fussed that not only is the Earth not the center of the solar system, but the solar system is nothing special either, it's just one more in an immense galaxy of billions.
The route to faith that they missed when they took this pseudo-science detour, is that science is only about the natural world. The supernatural is unprovable, and thus not subject to science. Is there a God, and did He create the universe with His supernatural, omnipotent powers? Maybe. Could the entire universe be riding on top of 4 supernatural elephants standing on the back of a giant supernatural turtle? Is it turtles all the way down? Maybe the universe was created by a supernatural Flying Spaghetti Monster? Sure. There is no way to test such ideas. If people want to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that we needed to be told why we are here and what to do, and God chose that means to do it, that too is untestable. Although we can endlessly analyze the Bible, build profiles of the sorts of people the authors were, we can never say the words weren't divinely inspired. We can also investigate why a lot of people have a penchant for those particular supernatural scenarios. Why monotheism? Why must there be an omnipotent, omniscient entity in charge of everything? Supernatural explanations could as easily have no gods or infinite numbers of gods. However, for a society organized hierarchically, it certainly is convenient for the leaders to promote the idea that the universe is a hierarchy too. Even polytheistic religions tend to pick out one god as the leader of the rest, Zeus/Jupiter, Brahma or perhaps Vishnu or Shiva, and Odin.
Whatever else the Bible is, it is a survival tool suited for the Iron Age, full of commands not to eat certain foods, not to fight over mates or resources, to obey authority, and so on. To bolster its proponents' claims to divine authority, it is also full of knowledge, with lots of instruction and history, including made up stuff. Covers every concern of the peoples of those times. For a work that is supposed to have all the answers, the authors could hardly leave out an explanation for how the world came to be, think what that would have done to the Bible's credibility. They had to have something, and Genesis is it. As long as no one could ever know what really happened thousands of years ago, it was a safe enough tale to tell. Then those killjoy scientists figured ways to investigate the past, and came to very, very different conclusions about what must have happened. Oops. There was really no chance whatsoever that an invented tale such as Genesis could have struck close to the real history of the Earth, not with the vastness of the ignorance the tale tellers labored under.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:56PM
Srop trying to argue for a Deist God and smuggling Yahweh in when you think we're not looking. Deism is tenable; heck, I believe it.
Yahweh is a bumbling idiot who can't go two centuries without stepping on his own crank hard enough to faceplant into the firmament. Not to to mention narcissistic, genocidal, and with the temper of an autistic four year old. Not only is that guy not God, if he exists at all he's some kind of evil spirit or demon.
All the Catholic stuff is completely irrelevant. It's a pretty castle in the air but its foundation is bad philosophy and worse poetry. I want the last 9 years of my life I've been forced to study this stuff to defend myself back.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:58PM
I agree with your goal, but disagree with your tactics.
The 'truths' supporting their ivory tower are built on faith. This foundation may be as strong, comforting, and generally useful to them as the rock of Gibraltar, but it is still their faith that supports.
Once they realize this, it can be both a strengthening moment for their beliefs and a eye opening moment for their understanding of why it is ok for their tower to be in conflict with others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:29PM
point out that said towers are on a foundation of mud and watery bullshit.
How do you successfully point this out? God can neither be proven nor refuted, one reason being that the term "God" is never really defined. Which is the lowest on the hierarchy of their beliefs? How do I successfully point out that it is wrong? Care to give an example?
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @10:46PM
A theory is an explanation for a set of observations.
A theory can be invalidated by subsequent observations. The orbits of Mercury invalidated Newton's theory of gravity. Michelson-Morely invalidated the ether theories.
However, an observation cannot be invalidated by subsequent observations. No matter what Mercury does in the future, the previous observations of it continue to exist, and will continue to invalidate Newtonian gravity.
Further, there are degrees of rightness and wrongness. The statement "The Earth is flat" is false. The statement "The Earth is spherical" is also false, but it is less false than "The Earth is flat". "The Earth is an oblate spheroid" is less false still.
Science is a method we use to ensure we never go from a less-wrong state to a more-wrong state. It ratchets forward, never back. No matter what observations we make, because all previous observations remain to disprove any false theories, every new theory must correctly predict each and every observation. No matter what Mercury does in the future, the theories of gravity that we make to explain it will look more like Einstein's theories than Newton's. No matter what interferometers show in the future, the theories we make to explain it will look more like quantum physics and relativity than the theories of the lumineferous ether.
And no matter what biologists observe in the future, whatever theories they make to explain it will look more like Darwin than Genesis.
We've already gone past Darwin's theories. His theory fails to accurately predict all manner of things - for instance, why taking a certain acid molecule from a bacterial cell, twiddling some carbons and hydrogens around, and sticking it back in, would cause a change in that bacterium and all its descendants. It fails to explain why increased levels of radiation would cause increased rates of evolution.
But the theories we have today look a lot more like Darwin than Genesis.
And they always will.
Anyone still sticking with pre-Darwinian theories is choosing to ignore observations that disagree with their pre-selected position, not choosing a position based on the full knowledge available to them. We deserve to ignore those people, and their theories, being objectively more wrong than the ones being taught, deserve no further consideration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:06PM
She is headmaster at a religious school with a government requirement to teach science.
She seems unable (or unwilling) to separate religious 'truth' based on faith from scientific 'truth' based on observation.
I think this ability (or willingness) is a requirement for the job.
Not having this ability means that the kids she is raising will have no intellectual tools to reconcile how these two useful views of the world can work together.
This seems counterproductive to either a religious or scientific agenda.
She needs to either change her ways or go.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:33PM
TFS starts out talking about the creation of life, then calls it evolution. Biogenesis is not evolution! It isnecessary for evolution, but life has to exist for it to evolve.
The fact is, we have no clue how life actually got started. The panspermian theory or whatever it's called, where life was seeded from space, simply deflects the question of how did it originally start, no matter if it was here or Rigel?
I'm pretty sure when we do figure biogenesis out, the Fermi paradox won't seem so paradoxical.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:33AM
I would like to suggest the facts about biochemistry means we *DO* know how life got started, at least generally. What we DONT know is a) if there is any other path b) is there any other combination of molecules possible. c) probably much other stuff.
So while I am trying to explain let's try a thought experiment of what EVIDENCE would be required to disprove a) or b).
Since every living thing known has DNA and RNA as the means for metabolic coordination, it is entirely plausible (but not likely possible) that there are other paths that could have been taken.
The reasoning is , that the very first self-replicating molecules (whatever they may have been) have a logical imperative to be able to reliably replicate with some small chance of error. The ONLY thing that matters beyond that point is time. Why you may ask? Because it can be experimentally shown that there are many naturally (i.e. from inert materials) ways to generate both entropically favoured environments (e.g. micelles), and the currently known nucleic and amino acids. Hence a), we really need to find life elsewhere to answer that. And replication (even unreliably) is key to how we define life.
Funnily enough, b) is easier to put a bound on. The only probable chemical choices for the molecules of life are those that can be exchanged in a non-solid state (obvious bit of physics regarding phase space, but clockwork or LEGO would evolve too slowly for even this universe's 1050 years!!!). So let's do a thought experiment. Well Carbon is great has it forms many types of bonds. Is that it, why not Si? Well what is the OXIDE form of whatever new biochemical base. SiO2
There is an enormous amount yet to be discovered - but we certainly know >>0. The problem with counter-arguments provided by hand-waving and other non-fact based explanations is they have no mechanisms to test, and ultimately we are all bounded by physics. That greatly narrows the possible choices....
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:11PM
There is an enormous amount yet to be discovered
My point exactly. It will be discovered and eventually we'll be able to do purposely what happened here accidentally.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:13PM
the Fermi paradox won't seem so paradoxical.
The Fermi "paradox" arises from 4 assumptions:
Only one of these needs to be false to resolve the paradox. We have no hard evidence for or against any of them, but everybody assumes that it must be (1) that is thrown into question - the one that simply assumes that we are not a non-falsifiable, but vastly unlikely, fluke.
(Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday February 09 2016, @11:38PM
People are not good at telling what actual wisdom is. People judge by appearances - whether it sounds wise, or the one speaking it seems wise, or whether it comes from a designated-as-such Wise Person.
So when someone says "What makes science different from all these religions that also try to explain how the world works? They freely admit that nothing can be definitively proven. Why should we follow what Einstein or Feynman or Dirac or Heisenberg teach, instead of Jesus or Buddha or Mohamed or LaVey or Hubbard?", it sounds wise. Every religion claims the privilege of being right - we cannot trust science's claim to be right, any more than christianity's or islam's or shinto's or wicca's. "Nothing can be proven, all beliefs are equal.", concludes the designated-as-such Wise Person, and then the masses nod and agree with the wise-sounding words spoken by a wise-looking person.
However, this is a false wisdom - something that seems wise, but is not.
Reality does not care what you believe. The powers of the human mind end at the epidermis, and even within its power is not absolute. Whether you believe the Earth is flat or round is irrelevant to the Earth, which will continue to be round no matter what you think.
Science has not claimed the privilege of being right. It has earned a claim to rightness by virtue of constantly seeking to rid itself of all wrongness. We once thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Science found signs this was wrong, and so those who follow science no longer think that. We once thought light moved instantaneously. Science found that this was wrong, and so those who follow science no longer think that.
Religions do not update their worldview to account for new evidence - or if they do, it is only by pretending that they always thought so, or at least never thought otherwise. The Catholic Church now claims that it never opposed heliocentrism, despite quite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Science does. That is the very definition of what science is. You want to know why science deserves to be called "right"? Take a look at its predictions, and test them yourself. Hell, do the same for whatever predictions are made by religious texts. Take a gander at Leviticus 11:6, then go find an actual hare, see if it behaves as described (hint: they're cecotrophes, not ruminants).
When was the last time a scientific theory was disproven by evidence gathered by science? Probably last week, if not today. When was the last time a scientific theory was disproven by evidence gathered by religion? Centuries. The worst enemy of a wrong theory is science, and that alone ought to tell you who is really interested in the truth, versus who simply wants to be seen to be true.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:10AM
The link takes me to a site headed Question More, and the author of the piece is described thus:
Sam Gerrans is an English writer, translator, support counselor and activist. He also has professional backgrounds in media, strategic communications and technology. He is driven by commitment to ultimate meaning, and focused on authentic approaches to revelation and realpolitik. He is the founder of Quranite.com – where the Qur’an is explored on the basis of reason rather than tradition – and offers both individual language training and personal support and counseling online at SkypeTalking.com.
I'll leave you to make your own mind up.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:28AM
As best I can make out, essentially what the summary is saying is that there's more empirical evidence for creationism theory than evolution theory.
Which is false. Move along now.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:39AM
This article is from RT.com, also known as the absolutely untrustworthy Russian Times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:52AM
Really, if the journal Nature started a long pattern of publishing incorrect, unsubstantiated or unprofessional articles I think many people would stop reading it. If this occurred I reckon Nature would be unable to redeem itself and ever be trusted again. Its good scientists would move to other journals. A "good" scientists who mistakenly publishes in the now discredited journal will not be believed.
Now, unfortunately, Christianity and Christians or anyone who uses warning words like Bible, God, faith or whatever is simply not going to be believed on a very broad range of research and opinion. This is because their words, parables, their votes, their interventions have been shown to cause disproportionate harm. Perhaps it's a shame if a religious person is actually on to something - maybe the world can be too pro-abortion and better family planning is needed, not more abortion. Seems fair. But no one is going to believe any argument like this coming from anyone who follows a Bronze Age religion. And I say we should simply turn away from these sources and move to others - there are many other worthy sources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:09AM
That witch-hunt seems fair enough.
I found this witch-hunt far more unjust and unfair - where Michael Reiss had to resign after the media twisted things to make it look like he was calling for creationism to be taught in classrooms. He actually said creationism should be tackled in classrooms (which is a reasonable thing if you're an educator - if you want to educate people and have them accept other viewpoints you often need to take in account their "Point A"s in order to get them to "Point B" or at least see "Point B").
What the media said:
https://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/leading-scientist-urges-teaching-of-creationism-in-schools [americanscientist.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article1967058.ece [thetimes.co.uk]
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/14/religion [theguardian.com]
But what he actually said said (note: the stuff like the first paragraph below the title is from the Guardian and not what he wrote, helps misrepresent what he actually wrote)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [theguardian.com]
That's what I call a witch-hunt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:33AM
warship mee!