Reply
Mon 6 Apr, 2009 03:54 pm
It has to do with how a theory in science works. A theory is the unifying mass of evdince that supports the theory's position. As weve said, all evidence supports and none contradicts. NOW, Creationism cannot do the same in several areas. The main area is that Creationism, no matter how hard it screams, CANNOT make any accurate predictions that are based upon their worldview, and it cannot cobble together any support science to even test any of its pronouncements (Eg, is there any geology that attests to a world wide flood? Is there any evidence in the fossil record that supports everything being created essentially the same time?)
Like Pierre Duhem stated , in order to make testable predictions in a theory, one needs to add "auxilliary propositions", In other words, the theory of evolution is a free standing unifying explanation of the descent of life. Its "Auxilliary propositions" are those that are the underlying sciences that can be tested to make predictions that support evolution.
For example, when Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins put together the expedition to Elsmere Island that ultimately led to the discovery of TiikTalik (the "fisha phibian") , this expedition was a proof of concept that the underlying science of descent with modification was accurate. Shubin and the boys, pored over geologic maps to find sedimentary deposits ofthe Continental Devonian Age . They also looked for deposits that exhibited shallow stream deposits that could possibly show fish fossils. These deposits were known primarily from 3 spots on the geologic regional maps.
1Greenland (already known but mostly deep water deposits)
2NE Pennsylvania redbeds of the CAtskill Delta-Earlier fish fossils found here that indicated some transition to walking "fins with finger structures"
3Ellsmere Island--Shallow continental sandstones of mid to late Devonian, unknown fossils except for deep water deposits on the Western Flanks.
When Shubin et al , made it to Ellsmere and revisited for the next 3 years, they ultimately were rewarded with the fossil that became known as Tiiktalik which, in Inutkitut, means "large fresh water Fish". We all seem to recognize the importance of this find , in that it is a real link between fish and amphibians by derived morphology. The most important thing, IMHO, is the ability that the sciences underlying evolution can be used to make these testable predictions. "If the sedimenst awere of the right type and age, they should yield up specimens of "missing links". I defy any of the Creationist thinkers to even come close to something this important. Hell, theyre still looking for Noahs Ark and evidence of a worldwide flood. I imagine that, with Texas now requiring kids to look at "Sufficiency of data" we will have to bring several of these types of examples forth to debate in science and see whether they arent robust enough to assist in the "newly prescribed" goals for critical thinking by our kids.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov
@dyslexia,
or
"I wonder if I tweak this thing "....((((boom)))))
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN
By what set of rules will a valid "win" be determined?
@farmerman,
Theory - A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I imagine that, with Texas now requiring kids to look at "Sufficiency of data" we will have to bring several of these types of examples forth to debate in science and see whether they arent robust enough to assist in the "newly prescribed" goals for critical thinking by our kids.
Critical thinking? Let us be honest; celebrating Communion is sympathetic magic, whereby "the substance" of the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ via the power of the transubstantiation. Then by eating it, one will have everlasting life. And you are concerned about Creationism limiting the critical thinking of children?
@rosborne979,
Not the point ros. Its a standard of acceptance that I am seeking. I say that Creationism will never rise beyond its present "high water mark". Theres too many people who wont accept the fact that Creationism cannot be quantified, tested, or used to make predictions.
@Intrepid,
Quote: It has to do with how a theory in science works. IN SCIENCEA theory is the unifying mass of evidence (and facts)that support the theory's position. As weve said before, all evidence supports and none contradicts a Scxientific Theory.
A theory is not a "hunch" in science, it is much much more. Another theory, Atomic Theory, is borne by all the evidence about the atom and its interaction with other atoms , and its actions within itself. All of which are either calculable , proven by predictive experiment, or seen in observation of the effects . So it is with the Theory of Evolution by NAtural Selection.
@Foofie,
You need to try to keep up Foof, Im using the very terms that are within the recently adopted regs promulgated by the Texas board of educations SCience Curriculum .
If you are more concerned by the voodoo of Christian myth and ceremony, why not start a thread about it ?. Im only interested in one thing at a time.
@farmerman,
Adaptations are often imperfect. S J Gould did a neat little book on the Pandas Thumb. A feature of which explores the marsupials "thumb" and shows that this digit is a bone spur that has been adapted t help the panda strip trhe bark from bamboo.Gould said that if a a "truly intelligent designer" had had a hand in it, the "thumb" would have been a far more efficient tool. In a small work called "Metascience" Raddick (2005) has shown several other more imperfect adaptations that are observed in nature.
A flaw in my point though , is that Raddick assumes that Creationism is testable and falsifiable under the Popperian rules. If Ise a Creationist, Id be saying that "Howthe hell does Gould know whats on Gods mind"? Id be trying to separate my worldview from that of the IDjits. Goulds argument would most fit the IDers because they take such scientific pride at identifying the end member of the evolutionary journey and Creationists deny that the whole thing is occuring. SOrt of like the myth worshippers bifurcating their views from the blind " scientists".
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Not the point ros. Its a standard of acceptance that I am seeking. I say that Creationism will never rise beyond its present "high water mark". Theres too many people who wont accept the fact that Creationism cannot be quantified, tested, or used to make predictions.
So you're saying that it will fail to "win" socially because it fails as science. Your initial post argues for why Creationism isn't good science, but it doesn't say why good science will ultimately win in society (by the way, I agree with you, but I'm curious to see your arguments for this conclusion).
@farmerman,
Theory - a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture
In religion, we call that "
faith"
@rosborne979,
Its a comparative thing ros. The Texass ed board is specifically staying away from teahing ID because that will automatically defy the rules of the USSC (as interpreted through Kitamiller). The "winning of which I speak" is the weight of just plain scientific 'investigation that will have to support the discussions of "sufficiency and insufficincy". If its considered "insufficient" to make a trestable prediction (like my initial example" , then what IS the better theory that can ? Creationism and ID cannot even muster one piece of objective evidence that is testable and is useful in making predictions.
I guess the words of "Sufficiency and insufficiency" will be those terms that will allow the brighter teachers to have some real fun with this new regulation and, (if their ears will bbe open) the textbook publishers will have a way to keep to the letter of the Texas law while still being able to impart some usable knowledge to the rest of the country
@BigTexN,
Quote:Theory - a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture
In religion, we call that "faith"
The difference comes when the hypothesis and the investigation come into conflict. In that situation, science discards the hypothesis while faith discards the investigation.
@Shapeless,
Quote:The difference comes when the hypothesis and the investigation come into conflict. In that situation, science discards the hypothesis while faith discards the investigation.
Two sides of the same coin....
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:In religion, we call that "faith"
In science, we call "
faith", giving up without a fight, quitting the game and walking out. It's for intellectual pussies.
@BigTexN,
Jever notice how sometimes a word has several meanings.Like "VaLUE" or "DIE", the word " theory" has several accepted definitions in the dictionary. WHether you skip over the one that is specific to disciplines in science, is not of any concern to me. If you wish to remain an ingnoramus, be my guest.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Its a comparative thing ros. The Texass ed board is specifically staying away from teahing ID because that will automatically defy the rules of the USSC (as interpreted through Kitamiller). The "winning of which I speak" is the weight of just plain scientific 'investigation that will have to support the discussions of "sufficiency and insufficincy".
Oh, you're not talking about winning in a very general sense, you're talking about winning in the specific case related to the wording of the Texas Ed Board discussion. That's different. Never mind.
@BigTexN,
Quote:Two sides of the same coin....
Nope, two different coins. They're not two paths toward the same ideal, but two different ideals. One side privileges the investigation, the other does not. You can make one coin out of heads and tails, but not out of heads and not-heads.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace