Evolution, creationism, fact, theory
This is a comment to a post in Crystal Clear
Here is a nice definition of theory
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested OR is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
So evolution is a theory since it is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory.
In the case of evolution the fossil evidence show that species change and new ones are developed with time. So an association can be established. The association is between change in species and change in time. We can arrive to conclusions here in the same way we arrive to a conclusion from a retrospective study in medicine, i.e., establishing associations. Certain associations are powerful enough to accept a cause-effect relationship, i.e. change in time leads to change in species (there is no way that a change in species will lead to a change in time). How do you think we arrived to the conclusion of which antibiotics are best for pneumonia? Retrospective studies did it because ethical concerns made prospective studies impossible. In the same way, evolution cannot be proven prospectively due to lack of time.
Creationism is a belief, based on faith. There is no science there. It belongs to the territory of religion so it should not be included in school textbooks. Anyone is entitled to believe in creationism, even scientists if they wish.
posted by Doctor Marco at 01:35
7 Comments:
Good explanation.
I posted on this a while back, also. Seems to be a hot topic these days, what with all those folks pushing their "Intelligent Design" theory.
One argument that I've seen, and I don't remember enough of my pure science studies, is that any scientific theory is "falsifiable". Evolution is falsifiable - you could show that a related specie's DNA was not related. But ID is not falsifiable - you can't disprove the possibility of a creator. So, ID is not a scientific theory.
(*)>
Tokilla is asuming that ID is a theory. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is not, it is something which is based in faith and cannot be considered a theory or science. If the belief is that a god created the rules of nature in an intelligent way, lets have religion deal with it in order to avoid unnecessary clashes with the scientific world.
Ok, that is fine. However, since ID is a belief, I think it should not be part of an official school program. There are many ways in which ID can be shown to society.
I had the experience of being taught just Catholic religion at school. I believe all religions should be presented in exactly the same way. ID can have a space there. ID should be presented as a belief from certain groups of people.
Science and religion are different things, I see them as mutually exclusive. Faith is a concept that is very strange for science. Religion is all about faith. That does not meen that a scientist could not have a faith, but it cannot interfere with his or her work.
Bioethics does not depend on religion. Scientists continously have to have bioethical approval for their projects, religion is not even mentioned. What happened in Nazi Germany has to do with lack of bioethical standards, not with lack of religion.
Albert Einstein, when he said "god does not play dice" missed the opportunity of embracing quantum mechanics. He is an example of a scientist who chose to have a religion, but at a given moment, his religion interfered with his scientific work.
Empirical: (From Yahoo Dictionary)
- Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
- Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Most of the knowledge starts from empiric observations. In fact, in medicine more than 90% of the actions we perform are based on empirical observations. Less than 10 % derive from formally performed studies that established a cause-effect relationship.
I do believe that religion and science are totally mutually exclusive. Science has ethics to deal with what is wrong and what is right. Ethics has nothing to do with religion.
With respect to Jews, Christians and Muslims, I think they have to learn from the Classical values, when there was no "correct" religion and there was more communication with nature with symbolic "gods"
My two cents, for what is worth:
I was raised in a small southern community before all of this hooplah about whether or not creationism should be taught in schools. Some of my teachers were more progressive than others, but I was taught a lot of interesting theories. When I entered college, I remember being outraged that only partial information was given to me, or in some cases completely wrong, unverifiable information, much of it influenced by the Baptist roots of my educators. Children are not stupid, as one of you pointed out. However, often children rely on their educators for facts and even at times the path to information that should be pondered and what should be accepted as fact. I believe whole-heartedly that this particular topic should be saved for adult education, when the facts and ideas can be presented in a proper manner. My son brings notes from his teachers today with horrible handwriting and bad grammar, misspelled words, etc... Be careful what you ask for, because sometimes you do not get to choose that Yahoo who can deliver this information to your children.
Post a Comment
<< Home