I really never thought of Bill Nye as the self-loathing type.

This was on Digg like....almost 3-4 weeks ago. I then, decided, that because this article was made last year, it wasn't really news.

Indeed. One of the many problems with the "scientific community". Certain unproved theories are assumed to be fact resulting in junk science. One of the links you cited even goes on to define evolution as a concept comprised of many theories and hypotheses. That about sums it up.

It's true, theories of gravity are the exact same way. Filled with junk science and completely unprovable.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not really going to be taking you that seriously from now on.

St. Augustine said it best:

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing."

Except you are using the informal definition of "theory," not the scientific definition. This wikipedia article does a nice job of explaining how evolution--by scientific definitions--is both a theory and a fact.

And this is what I was referring to above when I talk about how religious people feel about some scientists. I'm not religious but stereotypically many would probably assume I am because of my skeptisism of certain theories. So, therefore, I am to be dismissed by those who do have an unwaivering belief of some theories. Really quite similar behavior on both sides.



I was under the impression that gravitational theories are founded on proven laws of gravity. Am I mistaken and scientists have still not been able to prove gravity?

I would say there's been more witnessing of changing traits in organisms over time than witnessing of curvatures in spacetime or forces leaking through from another dimension.

Well, they all are still theories, afterall.

I do believe in concepts that I'm sure are a part of the general theory of evolution. To me, though, the notion of life evolving from "ooze" is simply too far reaching for me at this time. As I stated earlier, all of the miraculous accidents that had to occur simply to get to that point are mind boggling, let alone to get from that point. I guess whether you believe in evolution, creation, or some other theory, you have to believe in miracles regardless.

Arrgh, the misconceptions

Life coming from ooze has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis. You should read up on the subject, evolution is a fascinating process.

I don't know what you attempted to do with this thread, Roach, but I somewhat hope starting another hurr-thread we probably had last week wasn't it. Hm.

Wook, I feel I need to tell you that the theory of evolution doesn't include abiogenesis. It technically starts as soon as life takes place, abiogenesis is a chemistry theory. This is why even the papacy has stated that evolution and creation can peacefully coexist, abiogenesis and creation are the two that butt heads.

FGR, it wasn't really an attempt to start an evolution debate or anything, I simply thought it was hilarious that religious people became upset at Bill Nye of all people because he simply stated what should be obvious to anyone with access to books (Waco is obviously included in this demographic) that the moon reflects light and doesn't produce its own. I wonder if they would storm out of a forum hosted by a ornithologist for stating that bats obviously are not birds.

look, all i have to say is that if bill nye is one of those guys who got pluto knocked off the planet list, then he is no friend of mine

I've also heard that when Emons congregate, CO2 levels triple. I say, bottle up all the Emons.

And sell them in six-packs?

This made me laugh.

Seriously though, the volcano CO2 argument is long disproven, that's all I was saying.

...uh, all large concepts in science are comprised of many theories and hypotheses.

I don't think you know what a theory is. Or a hypothesis. Or science. Also, your name is spelled wrong.

Not to mention that abiogensis doesn't say that life just "popped" out of ooze suddenly. It's a very length process that took a very, very long time. Some parts have even been shown possible in the lab.

http://talkorigins.org

My username is most certainly not spelled wrong. That is simply your unproven theory.

And I want to state that I am in no way engaging in a debate on the Theory of Evolution. My comment regarding life evolving from ooze is also not intended to be considered part of the formal Theory. It is simply in reference to the general theory that life has continued to evolve from lower forms and the lowest form is theorized to be that which came from "ooze". I fully understand that that by itself is yet another unproven and unreplicated theory, chemical though it may be. As I stated earlier, I believe many of the concepts involved in evolution are true and I would go further to say undeniable.

It's spelled "Wookiee" so yeah, it's spelled wrong >_>

Absolutely not. My username is spelled in the manner I prefer. Not to be confused with the way George Lucas preferred to spell the name of the alien race depicted in the Star Wars franchise. So there.

In all seriousness I was thinking about this thread while I was out puttering around and realized that I really ended up going down a path I didn't mean to go down. I often use inflammatory language in posts to try to inspire people to post rebuttals and I did that here. But my main point was the dismissive manner people have toward other's beliefs. Sometimes that feeds off each other and the issue that I see that the most in is the Evolution vs. Religion debate.

I wholeheartedly support all research be that scientific, religious, etc because that is the primary way human understanding will be enhanced. By getting in to the discussion here I have learned somethings that troubled me. When I was a student and studied much more primary courses of science, it was essentially taught that scientists would formulate a theory and then, using the scientific method, would seek to prove that theory. But skimming through some of the links provided to me in this thread and then doing some brief research it seems that some definitions have been broadened so that a theory can be called a fact and that a fact can be called something that might not always be so.

To me that seems to be inspired by an agenda. For years a common criticism has been essentially the same I made here. That a "theory" is not "proven". But in my reading over the last couple days I have discovered that a theory can, in fact, be a fact but that a fact can change. This seems a little ridiculous to me.

Hey guys, this is like how my username has nothing to do with crocodiles.

You're missing the big question, Wookie: how do you feel about Bill Nye?

I guess I can spell "Stick" as "Qurlvut" and nobody would care because it's what I believe and they can't change that.

Isn't a fact just a piece of data?

Did you know that the singular of data is datum?

1: Theories cannot be "proven". Anyone who uses the phrase "prove a theory" doesn't understand the way science works.

2: Sadly, inertia is not a property of matter. Alas, not even Bill Nye is infallible.

Generally speaking I would have to say that when I saw his shows an unknown number of years ago I liked them. I honestly have no idea how long ago I saw his shows. They seemed geared towards science that kids could experiment on themselves. I don't know whether or not he has been guilty of some behavior that I do not respect from some so-called scientists but I hope not. And since Chewbubba has some respect towards him, I will assume that he has remained to be the respectible figure that I assume he is.



I would appreciate it if you could expound on your point #1.

But it wasn't Bill Nye that said that, it was the woman in the intro song ;(.

I don't want to read the entire thing, but my feeling is, that what the bible means is that the moon provided light during the night, through its reflection of the Sun, not that it literally emitted it like the Sun does.

Let me see if I have this right. The Bible is only meant to be taken literally when it serves your own beliefs. The rest of the time, however, it's open to interpretation. Is that a fair assessment?

I realize I'm blatantly ripping off Bill Hicks here, but claiming that the Bible is the word of God, and then changing and/or reinterpreting it is pretty freaking stupid.

Sounds like someone needs a lesson in the philosophy of science, in particular falsifiability (its ok, I’ll wait while you go look it up on wikipedia, while your at it, go look up Karl Popper he'll come up later).

Unfortunately, I can’t do this lesson justice without a thick Finnish accent (my Lecturer in Sociology of Science and Scientific Ethics was Finnish), but I’ll try:

The two most fundamental aspects of any scientific theory are as follows:
It must predict an observable/testable phenomenon
And it must be capable of being proven False.

The first aspect, (testability) is necessary for a theory to be useful, enforces specificity (IE a theory must predict a single and repeatable outcome), and is also necessary for the second aspect, (falsifiability). The necessity for falsifiability is simple; it is very easy to find evidence supporting any theory or hypothesis, regardless of it’s correctness. If however, a theory is correct, it will not have any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, instead of wasting our time looking for supporting evidence, one should always try to look for contradicting evidence, and when you have failed to find contradicting evidence, then you can say that you have failed to disprove the theory.

Furthermore, the strength of a theory is determined by the strength of the predictions it makes, and the strength of the evidence to the contrary.

Time to fall back to Karl Popper’s famous analogy. Lets say you have a scientific theory about Swans: You theory is that all swans are white. This checks out with both criteria for a scientific theory, it is testable (or at least observable, find a swan and observe its color), and is also falsifiable (find a swan that isn’t white). Now then, you can sit in your backyard all day and point at white swans, and say “SEE, a white swan, that supports my theory!” But yet there could very well be a black swan living in a lake just down the road, or somewhere else in the world, which you have never seen. Your theory is weak because your evidence that there are no non-white ducks is weak. This does not mean your theory is necessarily wrong, just that it is easy to disprove. If however you scour the face of the earth looking for non-while swans (documenting as you go, of course) and still fail to find any non-white swans, then your theory is strong, and difficult to disprove).

In terms of evolution, it is most defiantly a theory. It predicts observable phenomenon (that physiological changes occurred in organisms in the past due to external stimulus), and is falsifiable (Observe evidence that these organisms did not undergo physiological changes, or that these changes occurred instantly). Evolution, like every other theory, cannot be proven, Ever. It can only ever be disproved, or fail to be disproved.

Creation is also a theory, predicting that life appeared in its present form (I’m simplifying things here just a little). And it’s also falsifiable (prove that organisms have changed over time) So Creation is also a valid theory. Now, if you say that God planted evidence that organisms changed over time, when they didn’t then Creation ceases to be a theory because it also ceases to be testable or falsifiable, it instead becomes a belief.

The existence of God is NOT a theory (well, most often not). In order for the existence of God to be a theory, his existence must be observable and/or testable, and the absence of god must also be observable and/or testable. Many people will argue that God is unknowable/unquantifiable, therefore unable to be tested. This makes the existence of God a Belief, not a theory.

So far, there is not final substantial evidence to disprove Evolution (that is to say, there are no Black swans), there is evidence we don’t really know what to do with yet (Dirty swans whose color is hard to determine). Until someone can flat out disprove evolution, it’s still a theory, and based on the lack of strong disproving evidence, most scientists will agree it’s still a strong theory.


I’ve spoken my peace. Now:

GOOD SCIENCE PREVAILS!

There were also a lot of strong theories in history that were disproven. The model of the Atom was constantly changing.

do me a favor. tell me what this means in a literal sense:
seriously, because i don't know what that means in a metaphorical sense, let alone a literal one. but im guessing it is meant to be taken metaphoricaly.

and here:

i think it is fair to say that, at the time anyhow, this was meant to be taken literally. it is clear and decisive and does not give much wiggle room.

granted, i realize many people do flip flop on what they say should be taken literally and what should not, but my point is the bible is not a set 'must all be taken literally" or "must all be taken as metaphor" deal.

What?? Explain. My degree is in biology, not physics, but I thought all matter had mass, and a property of mass is inertia, and therefore a property of matter as well.

This is a strength of science, I don't understand why people seem to think it's a bad thing.

Furthermore, just because many past theories have now proven wrong, does not mean current theories will, although it is likely they will be refined.

I never said it was a bad part of science. Also, I'm pretty sure what you said about today's theories are *EXACTLY what they said back then.

That's kind of my point. People like Gold who say the Bible is the "word of God" should never be able to use phrases like, "I think what God meant to say was..."

If you assume that the Bible comes from God, and that God is infallible, the Bible isn't open to your interpretation. You've gotta take what's on the page and live with it. If you can't do that...Well, you probably need to rethink your beliefs.

With regards to the Bible being the word of God: If we assume that God is a real, divine entity beyond our understanding, it would follow (to me) that his word as understood by, written, transcribed, and translated over the years, as done with the Bible, would be flawed. I just don't see how the Bible could be completely literal under those conditions.



Neat, informative explanation there West Wind. So if by definition theories can only be disproven, how do we get to laws?

Scientific laws can be disproven. Just because, say, a ball falls to the ground when it rolls off a table your entire life doesn't mean that eventually it may not. Laws and theories are closely related, but theories tend to deal with multiple laws.