[mrdct]

Does an "established theory" out-rank a "valid theory"?

[P_Marlowe]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

Quote

<snip>
If you take the above numbers do you think both theories are
equivalent if it comes to the level of reliability?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. If I take your numbers, then obviously the evolutionary model is much more reliable. But, as it happens, I don't think the scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that the evolutionary model is 95% reliable for explaining how we got here.
<snip>

First of all, it aint my numbers, I suggested that you
exchange the numbers, if you are not happy with them.

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement)
that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues
(yes those issues exists), but is backed up by lots of
facts, and the other theory, with some open issues as well
(your words, not mine), is backed up with very few facts.

And I just wanted to ask you, if you really believe, that
those theories should be taught to children with the same
breath, because they have similar reliability.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Please note, I am not saying in which theory I believe, and I wont do it.
For me the issue does not exists.
I read once, that jew take the words of the bible and dont care,
if those words are 100% true, because it does not matter, they are
more interested, if they find answers to some open issuse they face
in the current situation, and thats it.
And I also believe that children are better served, if they learn the
more reliable theory in sicence.
Sicence has proven that although a theory is universally believed and
taught in classes, and there were a few in the past, that it can abandon
those theories and replace them with better ones.
Because in the end it does not matter, what is written in books, you have
to use the model to get answers for the real world.
Although the catholic church did ban Copernicus books, they allowed ship
catains to calculated their way with the help of the forbiddein theory.

[mrdct]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

Sorry, intelligent design = myth. No myths in science class, please.

I certainly agree that religious iterations of 'Intelligent Design' such as Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth, etc." are indeed myths as they comprise a story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form with the active participants generally being deities and/or heroes in a timeframe before recorded history began.

Generalist 'Intelligent Design' theory doesn't require the identication or specification of the entity or entities involved or indeed the mechanism by which the 'Intelligent Design' was implemented. 'Intelligent Design' theory provides a plausible explanation (albeit shallow) for the significant evidence gaps in evolution theory.

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

At the moment there are no acceptable alternatives to evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Just none that are ready for schools.

Acceptable to whom? Close-minded scientific bigots who refuse to give any consideration to concepts that can't be explained by known facts and require abstract or unconventional thought.

I stress that I'm not calling you or anyone else in this thread a "scientific bigot".

[Gerben42]

Quote

Generalist 'Intelligent Design' theory doesn't require the identication or specification of the entity or entities involved or indeed the mechanism by which the 'Intelligent Design' was implemented. 'Intelligent Design' theory provides a plausible explanation (albeit shallow) for the significant evidence gaps in evolution theory.

This sounds a bit like this:


(Image from www.mises.org)

I'm sorry but "intelligent design" by any means must explain the origin of the mechanism of the design, otherwise any theory based on this is based on circular logic, and thus invalid.

I am very open to new theories. But they must be consistent. There have been alternatives to Darwinian evolution, like Lamarckism.

[Codo]

Sometimes it is amazing how much believe scientists have in theories that they read about and did not check themselves.

"Earth is plate: OF course, else everybody would fall down who lives on the other side." People believed this for thousands of years. Disproved

"The sun is rotating around the earth." No need to check this, you can see it. Disproved

"People cannot drive faster then a horse can run. Obviously, because they are not build to move so fast." Disproved

"This stone must be 100. million of years old." No we had not been there, but if we check the Carbon -14 , it must be so old, because this method works in our theory and in the 20 years we watched the process.

"Conatgan is safe". We checked this with mice and rats. Disproved

"There must be evolution because the bones we found showed this and because this is true for bacteria."

I do believe in God and in evolution and I see no "either/or" in it, cause there is none. But it is quite funny how strictly the evolution theory is defended from some who did no own research.
My guess it that they simply prefer to believe Dawkins et al instead of other writers.

[mrdct]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

And I just wanted to ask you, if you really believe, that those theories should be taught to children with the same breath

As it happens, I think that the evolution theory should be taught with more breadth (and breath) as there are lot of complex concepts around general biology, genetics, palaeontology and history that need to be covered to explain the theory properly; whereas the 'Intelligent Design' theory can be adequately presented quite succinctly if you leave all of the religious elements out of it.

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Please note, I am not saying in which theory I believe, and I wont do it.

I will. I don't believe in either theory. Both are unproven theories with serious evidentiary and logical holes. This doesn't mean that either theory is wrong, and nor does it mean that either theory should be withheld from the education system.

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

And I also believe that children are better served, if they learn the more reliable theory in sicence.

I think we now have: "established theories", "valid theories", "reliable theories", "plausible theories" and just plain-old "theories". Maybe what the kids need is to have a term or so on the definition of a "theory" and then start introducing a few to them.

[Gerben42]

Quote

But it is quite funny how strictly the evolution theory is defended from some who did no own research. My guess it that they simply prefer to believe Dawkins et al instead of other writers.

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack evolutionary theory. I am quite okay with people like Codo who keep religion and science seperated.

But to keep religion out of science and fight against people like this Pat Robertson is a very worthy cause. THEY choose the battle ground. I didn't want a fight at all.

If someone comes up with a better theory, so be it. The old one will be discarded. Let me know when it happens. But so far, it's the best we can do and any other attempt to explain what we see around us has failed miserably.

There are many situations where there are more theories and no consensus, for example:

* We are at fault for the current temperature rise.
or
* Human effect on the climate is negligible, it's just natural variation.

I have my opinion on what is more likely, but the jury is out on this one and I am open to compelling evidence either way.

In the case of evolutionary biology, the fight is about details. Dawkins takes evolution to the gene level (see "The selfish gene"), whereas other evolutionary biologists don't buy this. No doubt this will keep them busy... The main idea is without alternative at the moment, though.

In my Ph.D. research field, planet formation, a similar situation is present. While no one doubts the main scenario (planets form in a protoplanetary disk around a young star, blah blah), the details on how to make gas giant planets differ.

One theory says bottom up: Start from planetesimals, build bigger rocks, these rocks finally attract the gas. Problem: Can we do this fast enough before the disk evaporates?

The other theory is top down: Density variations in the disk will collapse under their own weight, thus forming large gas giant planets in < 1000 years. Presto, no time problem.

So far this one is still open too, although leaning towards theory #1.

[mrdct]

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack evolutionary theory.

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack 'Intelligent Design' theory. But I'm equally disappointed that, by and large, advocates of 'Intelligent Design' tend to be religious nut-jobs which makes it difficult for a person not in that camp to question the veracity of the evolutionary model.

Gerben42, on Nov 19 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

If someone comes up with a better theory, so be it. The old one will be discarded. Let me know when it happens.

Well that's a great way to advance thinking and discussion on the issue. Take the "I'm content with the unproven evolutionary model and won't give 'Intelligent Design' the time of day as it's tainted by religious fanatics.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I think it is quite alarming how religious arguments are brought into science to attack 'Intelligent Design' theory

Quote

I'm content with the unproven evolutionary model

From this it appears there is some missing information in this discussion, and that is:

* What is "unproven" about the evolutionary model?
* What does a non-religious "intelligent design" model look like? (I am not aware a possibility that such a thing can exist, prove me wrong!)

[hrothgar]

Wow... Spend a few hours in bed and suddenly you're four pages behind in a brand new thread.

Here's a few (quick) comments.

1. As other's have already commented, the theory of Evolution does not provide a definitive explanation for every possible question that a scientist might pose. It is still a work in progress. At the same time, the Theory of Evolution is the definitive paradigm with the Biologicial sciences. There are no credible alternatives.

2. Intelligent design isn't science. I strongly recommend that people who question this watch the Nova documentary that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The development of the Dover trial does a wonderful job demolishing the claims of the Intelligent Design proponents. I also recommend that folks familiarize themselves with the so-called "Wedge Document" developed by the Discovery Institute. The Wikipedia has some good background material.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategy

3. I am very much opposed to the "Teach the Controversy" concept that MrDct is advancing. In principle, in a perfect world, I can see value in such an approach. In practice, I think that this would be an enormous mistake. On purely practical grounds, I don't think that most schools have enough time or resources available to add this type of material in to the curriculum. More importantly, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would spark political fights the likes of which you've never seen. The"Controversy" over intelligent design was deliberately manufactured by religious fundamentalists. Intelligent Design is not, in any way, Science. Done right, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would turn into a concerted attack on Intelligent Design and through that, Creationism. While I might find this highly amusing, perhaps even valuable, I don't think that its worth the cost. (Nothing galvanizes the nutjobs like the perception of persecution)

[P_Marlowe]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 07:07 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

I would suggest, that you cite in context, the snipet
of my statement referred to"evolution theory".

And I did also not claim, that you said, that you
believe in "Intelligent Design".

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Creationists took an Article from Homer Jacobson published 1955 in "American Scientist", as a scientific prove for their theory.

He did not know that, but when he found out what they made of his publication. He reread it and asked the editor to correct it although 52 year have passed.
Acting like a true scientist.

Homer Jacobson's new statement

[mrdct]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 07:07 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

I would suggest, that you cite in context, the snipet
of my statement referred to"evolution theory".

The same holds true for the evolution theory. I haven't made any statement that suggests either theory "explains it OK".

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

Wow...  Spend a few hours in bed and suddenly you're four pages behind in a brand new thread.

Here's a few (quick) comments.

1.  As other's have already commented, the theory of Evolution does not provide a definitive explanation for every possible question that a scientist might pose.  It is still a work in progress.  At the same time, the Theory of Evolution is the definitive paradigm with the Biologicial sciences.  There are no credible alternatives.

2.  Intelligent design isn't science.  I strongly recommend that people who question this watch the Nova documentary that was mentioned earlier in this thread.  The development of the Dover trial does a wonderful job demolishing the claims of the Intelligent Design proponents.  I also recommend that folks familiarize themselves with the so-called "Wedge Document" developed by the Discovery Institute.  The Wikipedia has some good background material.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategy

3.  I am very much opposed to the "Teach the Controversy" concept that MrDct is advancing.  In principle, in a perfect world, I can see value in such an approach.  In practice, I think that this would be an enormous mistake.  On purely practical grounds, I don't think that most schools have enough time or resources available to add this type of material in to the curriculum.  More importantly, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would spark political fights the likes of which you've never seen.  The"Controversy" over intelligent design was deliberately manufactured by religious fundamentalists.  Intelligent Design is not, in any way, Science.  Done right, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would turn into a concerted attack on Intelligent Design and through that, Creationism.  While I might find this highly amusing, perhaps even valuable, I don't think that its worth the cost.  (Nothing galvanizes the nutjobs like the perception of persecution)

I agree 100%

I would add that, based on my extensive amateur readings (natural history being one of my major preferred area for reading) evolutionary theory is now about as well proven as most scientific ideas. While intelligent design is clearly claptrap.

BTW, I strongly suspect that Dave literally has NO idea of what he is talking about. He repeats the basic premises of the ID school: that there are aspects of biology that are too complex to explain by evolutionary theory: the eye is one such object that is always brought up by the ignorami who spout nonsense, often while purporting to value ID and evolutionary theory as comparable in terms of logic and plausibility.

Let me suggest to those of that ilk that they actually READ some of the books on evolution.

They will learn that eyes have developed (evolved) in several different ways. They will learn HOW such complex structures can evolve over geologic time (one of the problems we, as humans have, in assessing the intuitive plausibility of complex ideas is that we have no real sense of big numbers... including just how long 3.5 billion years is!

In addition, it is nature's 'mistakes' that offer some of the best evidence against ID and in favour of evolution. The human eye is a classic: we are literally wired backwards: if we were intelligently designed, the optic nerve would terminate behind the eyeball, not in front of it where it actually interferes with our vision (altho the brain processes it to appear otherwise, just as it processes the saccades so that we don't notice them. Nature is full of examples of second-best choices, a bit like many players still use standard signals in bridge.... the game inherited those methods from earlier card games, while an intelligent designer of bridge, starting with a blank slate, would have used udca

[Fluffy]

Hey mike!, was disappointed to miss you on the first pages of teh thread

Probably Gerben will correct me here.

When scientist started studying particles, nobody knew how it was possible that atoms had 'eternal movement' with electrons flying around, but losing no energy.

Then came Bohr who said something like: electrons don't lose energy as long as they are flying at certain orbits.

Noody beleived that theory, even Bohr. But the important thing was that the model that came from it worked!. So everyone started using the model.

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.


It doesn't matter if the spaguetti monster keeps deceiving your tests upon a matter as long as he doesn't stop doing so, adn you can predict it.

The Evolution model works.


There were also models of solar system planets rotating around Earth (with a non circular, but heavilly complex orbit resembling rotation around the sun actually) wich worked better on certain predictions than models of rotation around the sun.


But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Nov 19 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

Absolutely. But this applies to science in general. The atomic theory, the periodic table of the elements, Mendelian genetics, evolution, you name it. No reason to single out evolution.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Nov 19 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

Hey mike!, was disappointed to miss you on the first pages of teh thread

Probably Gerben will correct me here.

When scientist started studying particles, nobody knew how it was possible that atoms had 'eternal movement' with electrons flying around, but losing no energy.

Then came Bohr who said something like: electrons don't lose energy as long as they are flying at certain orbits.

Noody beleived that theory, even Bohr. But the important thing was that the model that came from it worked!. So everyone started using the model.

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.


It doesn't matter if the spaguetti monster keeps deceiving your tests upon a matter as long as he doesn't stop doing so, adn you can predict it.

The Evolution model works.


There were also models of solar system planets rotating around Earth (with a non circular, but heavilly complex orbit resembling rotation around the sun actually) wich worked better on certain predictions than models of rotation around the sun.


But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

I suppose that, in one sense, you may be right... but only in a narrow sense that renders all discussion meaningless.

Any attempt to understand existence requires that we accept, as valid until proven otherwise, certain axioms. Religion, when it ventures into the realm of science, accepts, as axiomatic, that there is some being or power that has consciously chosen to create the universe and, this being the sole (soul?) reason for religion, US!

Science doesn't need that axiom (that hypothesis as Laplace called it). Science doesn't yet claim to explain the universe, until some billionths of a second after space-time came into existence, nor has science yet settled on a TOE.

But that is a strength of the scientific method: that it doesn't purport to explain things for which we have no compelling fact or evidence based explanation. Invoking God may make us feel more important, in a universe in which every major advance in science makes us more obviously a contingent branch of biology and, at its root, something very close to random chance. Invoking God may make us feel more secure. It also, of course, allows us to deal with the idea of our own death. By creating a God and a soul, we can imagine life after death.

Accepting that there is no God means accepting that there is very little likelihood that there is any after-life, and that scares us, as a species (and me, on occasion).

So a great deal of energy is spent trying to convince ourselves that God exists.

The fact that every culture has invented its own set of Gods (usually more than one), demonstrates that perhaps the evidence upon which we rely to create and believe in these gods is ambiguous. Those of a religious bent, when asked where the evidence is of their god, will often point to the world we live in. But if that world is evidence of their god, how come so many other humans misinterpreted the evidence and thought that the world proved that some other set of imaginary entities existed?

The scientist can (now) explain the day-to-day manifestations of the world by invoking physics. But there is not yet a full understanding of all of the universe, and it seems to me entirely plausible that our brains will prove incapable of ever understanding everything... even today, with our limited knowledge, there are aspects of the world that seem counter-intuitive: the wave/particle nature of electrons for example.

BTW, in my view, a good test of whether someone's world view is valid, or a close approximation to the 'truth', is whether use of the world view allows successful physical manipulation of the world.

With that in mind, compare the scientific view (which underlies evolution: evolutionary theory is a great example of the scientific approach at work) and religion. Look around your home or your office. Consider even the way in which we are communicating on this forum.

No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.

Religion affords no real explanation of the world. If it did, then prayer would be shown, experimentally, not anecdotally, to work (of course, prayer MIGHT work in some cases by virtue of the placebo effect). Real miracles would happen if the devout needed them.

Science works... of course, some of the applications of technology have unfortunate side effects, but I am not speaking of moral issues here. Religion, moral or otherwise, and certainly much religious practice over the known history of man would now be seen as immoral, doesn't 'work' in that sense at all. So how vaild an explanation can it be when it doesn't lead to anything? And leading to salvation is not leading to anything: since the reasoning is perfectly circular and non-testable.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

<snip>
No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.
<snip>

They did.

For that matter, at least with regards to europe,
the church was the main responsible institution,
for ensuring that the knowledge of the Greeks and
Romans survived the dark Ages.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on Nov 19 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Science is about prediction, not proof. Scientific theory about microevolution can be used to make predictions...about how closely related one animal is going to be to another prior to checking their DNA, about mutations of bacteria, and so forth. Some of the predictions it makes about things such as life on other planets have yet to be shown true or false, but it at least makes a projection.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design and the Spaghetti Monster predict...what, exactly? If they aren't useful for making predictions, then they're religion, or history, or something, but they aren't Science.

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

<snip>
No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.
<snip>

They did.

For that matter, at least with regards to europe,
the church was the main responsible institution,
for ensuring that the knowledge of the Greeks and
Romans survived the dark Ages.

With kind regards
Marlowe

give me an example. I accept that there was (and maybe still is) a tradition that saw clerics work in the field of natural science, and so a cleric may have produced or played a role in the production of some scientific or technological advance, but did they do so through prayer or through application of scientific principles?


As for the role of the church in the preseration of roman and greek knowledge, my understanding is different. While some vestiges of knowledge were preserved by the church, my understanding is that far more was preserved in the Arab world: the renaissance, in large part, came about due to the rediscovery of the works, especially, of the ancient greeks through contact with the islamic scholars.

The church was far from a progressive institution: it was dedicated to maintenance of the status quo, along with efforts to assert/promote the primacy of the papacy... and was rife with internal and external intrigue and power struggles (there were even, for a while, two popes at once...each denouncing the other).