Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote: |
Um, there is not plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution. If there was, then it would no longer be a theory.
Obviously that isn't true, because there is plenty of evidence against it (hence the large numbers of people who don't subscribe), and it is still taught as the prevailing theory.
Pray tell, what is the evidence against it? Actual evidence? The large number of people who don't subscribe do so in spite of the evidence, not because of it, and precious few of those who don't subscribe are scientists.
If there really were evidence against it, the theory would be discarded.
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote: |
this is the best explanation we have to date based on the available data. That includes evolution, gavity, electromagnetism, gas pressure, germ theory, relativism, etc.
I would not put evolution in the same class as gravity, electromagnetism and the others you mention. It shouldn't be given that status, because it isn't as sound a theory as those others. Or put another way, why are there not similarly large numbers of people who disbelieve the prevailing theories of gravity, electromagnetism, gas pressure etc.?
Actually, it is quite as sound a theory as the rest, but the rest do not contradict a religious book that some heretically use as a science text. Creationism is a heresy.
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote: |
Hypothesis: based on available data, I suspect that things operate this way.
Yes, and I suspect that there would be less of a problem with evolution being taught if it were made clear that it is being presented as 'we suspect things happened this way'.
The problem isn't the one you state, because what is presented is "we suspect based on evidence and the lack of contradictory evidence that things happend this way", and "based on evidence and the lack of contradictory evidence" is the point that the creationists have the hardest time with.
To address the topic of the thread. Intelligent design should not be taught as science. For the EXACT SAME REASON, evolution of man from single celled life should not be tought as science.
But the latter IS science.
It's not enough to say "I don't believe in your religion," people need to be able to say "Your religion is wrong, therefore I don't believe it."
That is what creationists often say to scientists. Evolution doesn't make Christianity wrong, it makes the heretical creationists wrong since they commit the heresy of bibliolatry and posit their religious text as a scientific text.
Well then, why and how does this debate exist? I know it does exist, and it was my understanding that there are many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea that the species we see today evolved from simpler life forms. But obviously I don't know enough myself to make any sort of case.
The debat exists because those who follow the heresy of creationism are opposed to teaching evolution because they mistake religious writing for scientific writing. There are many Christians who understand and accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation for how things work, and many scientists are Christian. However, there are not many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea of evolution as the best explanation.
I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I've made in the past, but there are two components to evolution. The first is what we see, can experiment with, and what happens as we go forward in time. This is science, it is the scientific method. The second is that this mechanism of biology explains the origins of mankind. This is not science. It is history, and however much science is used to make our guesses about that history more accurate, those guesses are NOT science.
The distinction you make does not exist.
Like every theory, evolution makes predictions. One of the ways to prove a theory wrong is to show that the predictions made do not occur. For instance, with gravity, you will have the prediction that objects will accelerate to each other at a certain rate. If the rate is off, then the theory of gravity is off.
Evolution made the prediction that we would find, in the fossil record, remains of some of the ancestors of certain life forms, and common ancestors. Then we did find them. It's not history, it's science.
The basis for historical fact is quite different than for scientific fact. History is inherantly unknowable, because we weren't there. Therefore we rely on what has been written, and what we can observe. However, if things are not spelled out for us, the consensus is, what we have to do is guess, and support that guess with evidence while we can never "know." Perhaps using science to increase what we can see and the accuracy of our guesses.
How do you know I wasn't there?
Were you there?
Seriously, we can figure out what happened before based on what is left. If what is left is different, we have a different what came before.
What people here are saying about historical evolution and that it is a Scientific Theory is the opposite of that. Science works on the assumption that a guess is right until proven wrong. In other words, that we CAN explain the universe, we just have to find out how. In an experimental sense, this works, because we can guess, and "know" that something is right because it makes sense with the data we have... until someone proves it's wrong, and then we have to guess again.
Historical evolution is a theory based on evolution, geology, physics, and the assumption that we weren't created, complete with memories, last Tuesday.
History declares itself unknown except for guesses. Evolution declares itself known until you can prove otherwise. History is not science, but Evolutionary historians claim to be science to try and make their guesses seem "right until you prove me wrong." Where other historians just accept that it can't always be known, as much as we would like to.
You always leave out "based on data". Historical Evolution (an incorrect division) is the best guess
based on data. Then the "prove me wrong" is a call to prove, not the theory, but the data wrong.
Horses & ponies are the same species and do produce fertile offspring. It's donkeys that are a different species. A donkey crossed with a horse (or pony, for that matter) produces a mule which will never bear or father offspring, no matter what sort of animal it is bred with.
Sometimes, rarely, female mules and female hinnys are back-fertile to their parent species.
The resulting horses and donkeys are a little odd though, because the genes that do match up sometimes end up in the other species produced, and you get a full horse with donkey traits or a full donkey with horse traits.