Why is evolution taught as FACT in our schools, when it is only a theory?
Many of evolutions ideas can not be substantiated by a fossil record or by good science…. In fact many reputable scientists today are becoming uncomfortable with this "theory" of evolution.
Related posts:
- Creation vs Evolution vs Intelligent Design… What is it you believe and why?
- why is it you can only fold a peice of paper 7 times? is it the same with clingfilm or tinfoil?
- Can anybody please explain to me in as simple terms as possible the quantum theory of superpositioning?
- Driving theory test – What is the best way to study for it?
- When a beloved pet dies is it better to remove traces as soon as possible or leave them until you feel ready?
sfm730 - January 28th, 2010
only a theory? do you have any idea what it takes for the scientific community to label something a theory? there has to be mounds of supporting fact…
ok ok ok… answer this one thing for me…
care to explain the whale?
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
What are you smoking and where can I get some Claire?
ludovicspeaks - January 28th, 2010
Some one opened up a can of worms….. Why can't we all just get along…..
gerkshinobi - January 28th, 2010
Very brave woman.
Good for you!
~Neeva
seancurtis - January 28th, 2010
Most things evolve. Look around with open eyes.
SweetSpiced - January 28th, 2010
some people still scream out their favorite verse with their eyes wide shut, and their fingers in their ears, completely ignorant to any remote inkling of rational logical thought…
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
I feel your pain Claire.
this_melis - January 28th, 2010
evolution is a fact AND a theory… to become a theory, it must be based on fact…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
JamieCoogan - January 28th, 2010
Evolution is a theory based on fossils.
Facts are proven theories based on evidence.
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
<i>"Evolution is a theory based on fossils.
Facts are proven theories based on evidence."</i>
Right. And fossils are among the evidence that proves evolution.
JamieCoogan - January 28th, 2010
If you are referring to Darwin’s theory as presented in “On the Origin of Species”, it was based on geology, paleontology, and biology, not just paleontology.
AnnaRichenda - January 28th, 2010
people forget that to become a theory, it has to be based on fact…
J_Kaye - January 28th, 2010
Redsector, the fossils are strong evidence, but not necessarily enough, there are still missing peices, as fossils are really hard to make.
Starwolf, there have been many theories that have been proven untrue, because a theory is based on a guess, not facts, facts are things that have been proven.
Before any more of you start jumping me for having my own beliefs AGAIN, I'd like to say that I AM NOT PUSHING CREATIONISM, I AM NOT SOME RELIGIOUS NUT, AND I REALLY CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THE WORLD GOT HERE, AND I'D BE SUSPICIOUS OF ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
nobody says they have ALL the answers… but evolution sure does have alot of facts when put together… as for fossil records… we have tons of fossils… just because we are missing a piece here and there doesnt mean the big picture isnt obvious…
yes theories have become proven untrue… like the earth is the center of the universe, or the world is flat… but evolution has been tested against for over 100yrs now, with science… maybe someday we will find the earth pooped everyone out at once, but as for right now, the evidence points towards evolution
JamieCoogan - January 28th, 2010
Theories can certainly be based upon facts. However, they do not require it.
Furthermore, the "facts" that they are based upon do not necessarily validate the "theory". Ultimately the "theory" is designed to attempt to explain a specific set of phenomena or facts.
To teach evolution as "fact" is inappropriate. Unfortunately we can never prove it.
However, we can continue to build a very plausible "theory" that evolution was the mechanism by which all life was created. With each piece of factual information we uncover our theory becomes more likely but still unproven.
~Neeva
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
Gbob, I think nobody is trying to attack you (not me for sure). I am just fascinated by the subject of evolution and always enjoy talking about it. I only wanted to augment what you had said about fossil evidence. There are many more entire fields of science that lend evidence to evolution, so it's not a theory based only on fossils (that's why I mentioned that it's only some of the evidence for evolution). There's also genetics, comparative anatomy (whales have inexplicable and useless vestigial features of land mammals, for instance), cosmology, and several more fields.
seancurtis - January 28th, 2010
neeva… nobody is teaching evolution as fact, even though most scientists, including myself believe it as such… i dont think anyone here is claiming evolution is 100% fact, but it is based on alot of facts… a few potholes doesnt make the bridge not exist…
AnnaRichenda - January 28th, 2010
starwolf,
I understand that. However, that is what her question asks.
Fact vs. Theory.
~Neeva
DellU_IowaState - January 28th, 2010
as i stated before… evolution is based on facts… and has been tested against those facts for over 100yrs… therefore it is a scientific theory… creation is a hypothesis because there are no facts to back it up… they teach evolution because it can be tested… creation is no more than a religious belief, it cannot be tested and there are no facts to test it against…
seancurtis - January 28th, 2010
Is it a FACT that evolution IS being taught as fact? The theory of evolution will stand until a better theory comes along. Until that theory can explain everything that the theory of evolution does, intelligent people will gravitate toward the plausible facts instead of superstition.
Science teachers should be stating evolution as a theory. Anyone with eyes and a working brain can see the truth. Those who choose to click their brains off will evolve in a different direction. Good luck with that.
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Evolution is a theory. She asked why it was taught as fact.
Fact and theory are not the same thing.
This has become a religious argument yet she never even mentioned religion or creationism.
Me thinks the evolutionist protests too much.
~Neeva
SweetSpiced - January 29th, 2010
And I asked her why she thinks it's being taught as a fact.
seancurtis - January 29th, 2010
neeva what youre not understanding is to be called a theory, like evolution is, it has to be tested against facts… so a theory is based on facts… it can be tested and proven…
it is a religious argument… the religious dont want evolution taught in school because it goes against what they are taught in the bible… we cant have creationism taught in scools because… well its illogical and there is no science to back it up… evolution is a science, it should be taught in all schools… religion is a belief structure, it should only be taught in home or in a church…
SweetSpiced - January 29th, 2010
Creationism may be illogical, but those biblical stories are so imaginative. It's easy to see how they started and what keeps them alive.
It's like we always deal with children. They ask tough questions and parents often use cute stories to answer the question. <i>Where do babies come from?</i> The stork brings them. <b>When the question is too tough, stories are told</b>.
So when humans started asking the tough questions and no one knew the answer, human imagination kicked in. It's only natural.
Handling death has also been the big challenge. Reality is harsh and some people just can't handle it. The Heaven superstition makes it all so much easier… or 72 virgins, or whatever fantasy religious leaders think you need to hear.
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Methinks we are sick of that pretentious Shakespearian paraphrasing! I thought if I ruled it out, the RELIGION of "do not question our books!" might be appeased to accept the idea that it may or may not be right, and that without a complete progression of evolutionary links we can't PROVE anything, thus we have a theory not a fact. Though, if you'll go all the way back to the beginning and read it over, I did state that the theory had strong evidence, but not conclusive, I wouldn't say it wasn't worth teaching, but teaching as a theory, not a fact, as FACTS tend to cause people to stop looking for evidence when in reality, we're still short a few pieces, or a lot, we can't be sure yet.
SweetSpiced - January 29th, 2010
True. Some people really have their heads buried in the sand. I like how christians like to believe that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. There's nothing about it that makes it scientific or a legitimate theory.
JamieCoogan - January 29th, 2010
i believe it was red that once said… if you dont believe in evolution, you should not be allowed to take a flue vaccine…
the flu virus has evolved… under observation into a new virus that is immune to the previous vaccine…
its illogical to think evolution isnt fact… look at us… look at dna… do you think we look like a chimpanzee because god was running out of ideas? do you think a rabbit or a cow has 2 eyes and 2 ears, a mouth and a nose because god used the same template 6000yrs and created every animal in the blink of an eye?
come on… these are the obvious things… there are piles of data all pointing to one conclusion… we humans evolved from lower primates… and they evolved from lower mammals…
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Or take insulin for that matter. I wonder how many Christian diabetics realize the insulin they are taking is manmade from genetically engineered bacteria.
It has taken me a long time to accept what I have been refusing to see; logic does not apply to areas of faith. Faith, it seems, is a lot like love; it does not concern itself with rational thought. Trying to get someone to question a long held belief of theirs is like trying to convince a teenager that the person they are madly in love with is wrong for them.
I have reached a personal dilemma. On one hand, I feel that I cannot sit back and allow the cancer they call religion to continue its spread, especially to delicate young minds, but on the other hand I feel deep sorrow that I am upsetting people who are madly in love with the promise of an eternal life of bliss (regardless of how fallacious that belief is). How can we stop the cancer from spreading but let those who are afflicted by it die in peace?
Anyway, you do not have to sell me on evolution. I do not believe in evolution, I know evolution is fact.
anotherstory - January 29th, 2010
exactly jerry… yeah i wasnt trying to sell you on evolution… only adding to what you said…
as for you personal dilemma… i agree and am right there with you… i was the product of a catholic school and a christian college… yet i started questioning things at a young age…
i remember my teacher, sister mary peters was talking about the great flood… and i was looking at the size written in the bible, doing the math in my head… a pair of all the animals, and enough food and water for the deluge… it didnt add up…
then they were talking about family lines of jesus all the way back to adam, and then the creation…
i asked "what about dinosaurs"…
i got smacked with a ruler both times… this is the logic of the christians, and most every other faith… do not question the bible…
i have 3 children… my 2 youngest still go to church… my oldest is 12.. he is beginning to ask questions now… so i tell him the truth… he knows evolution… he knows there is no god per se… and he is ok with that… i explained it this way… think of god as a natural will, a force in the universe that attracts and combines all the atomic particles together… this will did not create us, it merely binds us… this will is not alive or sentient… it simply coexists as one of many governing laws of physics… and he understood… he is ok without a god… he also knows, which ive taught him, that its ok to take the positive teachings from the bible, just disregard the fairytales…
J_Kaye - January 29th, 2010
<i>"i believe it was red that once said… if you dont believe in evolution, you should not be allowed to take a flue vaccine…"</i>
Aw, starwolf, I would say no such thing. I merely said that evolution deniers can take <i>old</i> vaccines from old strains of flu virus (after all, they cannot evolve, right–no beneficial mutations can ever occur, as they are so fond of saying–even for flu viruses!).
Similarly, they can take penicillin for all their bacterial infections. Yep, tried and true. No new antibiotics are necessary, because bacteria do not evolve, as proved by creation scientists. If you want the modern medicine (new vaccines, antibiotics), you must sign a form accepting the validity of evolution.
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Napkins, anyone?
<i>This place is dripping with delicious sarcasm</i>, provided by RedSectorA.
JerryMC, I feel your pain. But religion isn't that bad, through in through. I wouldn't mind if people believed in a God, I just wish everyone who was so intent on it would resort to agnosticism. You can fear God without proof, and not step on anyone's toes.
I honestly feel that other-worldly beings might go through religion at some point. The ones that don't wipe each other out probably follow and believe science only. They're probably the ones with UFO's and laughing gas light grenades aimed at Earth.
J_Kaye - January 29th, 2010
Jerry, I thought the same way regarding religious faith, for a long time. However, I don't think that people will ever change. They will always be afraid of death, and always be prone to wishful thinking and fantasy. There is not much to do except sit back. Because sitting up and providing direct confrontation often works in the opposite way from what we'd want.
Generally, I'm happy with the state of things now (e.g. we can actually be agnostic and/or atheist or a minority religion, and not be burned at the stake), although things could always be better. True, the US has miserable poll numbers on acceptance of evolution, but I have my doubts that things are really all that great in even the atheistic European countries like Denmark (where evolution is much more accepted). It think those countries have their own irrationalities (acceptance of psychics, astrology, fad alternative medicines, etc).
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Are you a Scientologist, Muse?
AnnaRichenda - January 29th, 2010
Humanist. The alien references are always a joke.
celtics - January 29th, 2010
And if you were being sarcastic, I did laugh at the question!
No, but really. I'm totally Tom Cruise.
AnnaRichenda - January 29th, 2010
<i>"No, but really. I'm totally Tom Cruise."</i>
LOL
Actually, I wasn't sure about your UFOs and laughing gas light grenades aimed at Earth–for a moment I thought you may have been a member of Scientology's Sea Org, on a billion-year employment contract to fight a war against aliens (which some members actually sign). Some people that nutty can actually function in normal society, use the internet, wipe their own bottoms, etc. Like Tom Cruise.
AnnaRichenda - January 29th, 2010
Now the real ironic thing would be if they actually saved our lives one day. I swear I think I saw something like that on a Dragonball Z episode.
Either that or it was just Goku going <i>Super Saiyan SSJ XI</i> again. Really hard to tell the difference.
celtics - January 29th, 2010
I wish we did not feel the pain, Muse. Please feel free to call me Jerry.
Religion is bad, through and through, Michael. It’s not the god thing that pains me it’s the extinct species, the destroyed ecosystems, the annihilated civilizations; at the hands of humankind that claims it is their “God Given Right”! The thing that really rips my heart out is the excision of our most precious traits, inquisitiveness and rational thought. Consider this quote from a conversation that I had with a devote Christian, “I don’t have to understand… I know it’s the truth.” That should be a crime to do that to someone’s mind!
We are just now planning to go back to the moon. Where would we be right now if humankind had not been shackled by the mysticism of religion? It is sad to think about how far religion has set back the evolution of humankind.
You’re right. I think insecurity is going to be part of the evolution of intelligence. I do disagree with you about belief. I think once an intelligent life form makes it past infancy, they will not be willing to accept something as true – the will either know it or discard it — they will not believe it.
AnnaRichenda - January 29th, 2010
I’m not so sure, Red. Do you fear death? I know I don’t. What possible rational can there be for fearing death when one is taught the truth? Do you think that if given a chance to know reality that people will understand there is no need to fear death? What if a person’s mind was not tainted with mysticism?
That’s true. At least we are not being burned at the stake for pointing out the obvious, but I cannot say that I am happy about it. When a 13 year old who does not know the difference between their, they’re, and there is proclaiming he “knows” Noah and the Great Flood are true, something is overwhelmingly wrong. How can conscience people be content with indifference? I am struggling with that.
celtics - January 29th, 2010
For once we have a good discussion on this. Kudos to you Jerry.
<i>I do not believe in evolution, I know evolution is fact.</i>
Nice. As far as evolution goes… it is so beyond obvious… If god created evolution as a big puzzle for us to figure out, man, he's laughing his ass off right now.
J_Kaye - January 29th, 2010
look at us… we need to form a political party and reform… wait… damn… ok ok, whos got big oil in their back pocket!!!!
J_Kaye - January 29th, 2010
Jerry:
You pretty much said what I think about the evolution of intelligence better than I have said it thus far, and I will adopt the terminology you used. Insecurity is a brilliant word for what I once called self-awareness. I always imagined a newly intelligent being sitting on a rock one day with nothing to do, looking at the stars and thinking "what the hell is the point of all of this?" – insecurity is a much better idea.
I always imagined this insecurity being a part of intellectual evolution mainly because we don't come up as a species knowing all the answers. So we begin noticing the very cliche "circle of life", give to land and it gives back. We marvel at the glory of the sun and the mystery of the moon. The grace of a hawk. We give them names, and make up stories to explain what we don't know.
And then we make fire. Technology begins to increase, and so does the superstition. At some point along the line, we might make human sacrifices – or murder people for having different beliefs out of the same insecurities. At some point we can break off and make our own groups and begin with new beliefs or adopt old ones. We spread our insecurities across the globe like a cancer, killing any who oppose our irrational thought.
Then, at some point down the line, any intelligent life form should be able to see the wrongs and look to the rights. They can see that the sun is merely a ball of fire in the sky, the moon a rock floating in our orbit. The hawk is not a god, but just a bird that preys on smaller animals.
We realize that ripping hearts out of people and burning them appeases nobody but the insane, or that the people we murdered for not following OUR irrational thought was an atrocious act of what will lead to the fall of humanity. We can trace the books back to the people who wrote them and realize they were nothing special. We can match events to dates and see there is nothing to be insecure about.
And any intelligent species would drop the superstition then and there, and look for more answers. Solutions to problems. The very defense of humanity against sickness, disease, irrational thought, and controllable disasters. But no, we still cling to hawk gods, human sacrifice, dated texts, and fictitious names.
It is a poison in the sense that brainwashing people SHOULD be considered illegal. I saw a very neutral Jesus Camp and my heart sank deeply. I would applaud a child who can do math, loves English, and studies science. I would be fearful of a child who believes in intelligent design and claims he talks to Jesus.
The problem is tackling the massive group-think that has enveloped them all. It takes just one "I don't need to understand because I know it's true!" to spark that same flame in many more. And while we can shove fact down people's throats, I notice it's more of how "set" people are in their religion at a given time.
Some people, I noticed, really DO need religion. It gives them an open door to other irrational people where they can group-think happily and quite effectively lie to each other and to themselves all day. Others might be nearing a road where they are going to die, and in irrational thought will take up a religion so they can go to a better place.
If someone's lifestyle revolves around being accepted for their beliefs where they would struggle without the acceptance, they will not give it up. And that to me explains almost any hard-headed religious person I know.
Imagine the amount of counseling and support groups would be needed to explain to the WORLD that there is no God? People still need those social groups, but why the group thinking religious ones? I'd much rather have a group that sparks thought, desire, and passion about our current world.
Sorry, I'm groggy and rambling – I don't even know if I'll make sense.
J_Kaye - January 29th, 2010
wow muse… lets write a friggin book…lol
alaskatravelgrm - January 29th, 2010
Haha, I know man, I know. I type like 80 WPM so once I get going – MOVE OUT THE WAY! My musings spill onto text like a waterfall.
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
we should write a new book… a bible per se… we'll call it the way… or wayism… which focus' on the positive teachings of all the great teachers of our past… we will have philosophy based on science…
celtics - January 29th, 2010
I agree. I've always felt that the human construct of "noun" is what fails us. We see what we call a tree, and call it a tree. But what is it REALLY? It is an arrangement of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, etc atoms. What is the "soil" it is living in? An arrangement of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, iron, etc. What is the earth? An arrangement of carbon, hydrogen, iron, nickel, magnesium, silicon, oxygen, etc. Where does the earth end and the tree begin? They are constantly exchanging material. Every day. There is no boundary between the tree and the earth, and there is no boundary between earth and the rest of the universe. The boundary we create in our heads is merely a simplification.
Where does the universe end and "human" begin?
Once you realize that there is an unbroken link between yourself and the very first organisms that lived on this planet (or rather, that became <i>part</i> of this planet), you realize the true beauty of everything that is. Nothing is separate from anything. The cow you ate for lunch is now You. You are Earth. Earth is universe.
Nouns create illusions of differentness from the universe. It makes no sense to ask "why" about life, because there is no "why."
Why do silicon atoms arrange themselves in precise geometrical crystal lattices? There is no mechanism behind it. All life is a reaction, an arrangement, a ~3.8 billion year-and-running chemical reaction. Just like the sun is a 12 billion year reaction. Everything is verb. Nothing is noun.
DellU_IowaState - January 29th, 2010
Yes, a book <i>does</i> sound nice. Maybe something to think about, but I really wonder if anyone has ever done something like that.
celtics - January 30th, 2010
Muse:
I will have to second StarWolf’s Wow! I envy your ability to sit down and compose such lucid thoughts, like clear, pure water running over a mountain waterfall. It takes me forever to put my thoughts on paper, much like a dripping faucet takes to fill a glass.
While reading your comment, I could not help but question whether humanity, as a whole, should consider itself intelligent. It also tends to make me ponder the possibility that not everyone has evolved from the same evolutionary branch (though I imagine we do). It amazes me how humankind can contain such polar opposites. What is it about us, as a species that causes such wide swings? Our thought seems to range from the sublime to the nonsensical.
Yes, it will take a lot of deprogrammers to set humanity back on the right track. Like you, I’ve often thought about what it would take to undo all the damage that indoctrination has done. Do we have enough trained, qualified personnel ready for the task? Maybe deprogramming should be a course taught in public schools?
Thank you for taking to time to share your thoughts.
DellU_IowaState - January 30th, 2010
Thank you, Gafar. You have some interesting thoughts. I understand your point, but I do see boundaries (our skin is a good example). We are not an integral part of the universe, but the universe is an integral part of us. I think it was Carl Sagan who said, “We are a way for the universe to know itself”, and I think you have just illustrated that rather nicely.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
Write a book? I would be more than happy to provide a blog space for collaboration. I am also good with a word processor and would be willing to construct the book (table of contents, footnotes, figures, index, content etc.). You can count me in.
celtics - January 30th, 2010
because the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution… they have been trying to disprove it since darwin came out with origin of species and they havent been able to do it yet…
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
I still to this day for the life of me, cannot understand why these issues can't co exist and can be supported by both science and religion. It seems all the time there's evidence just being discovered to day that Christians have known for centuries, example the world was covered with water. Duu. I am into science very much.
I heard on the radio the other day a man say "I'm surprised the Bible hasn't been tested on the program The Myth Busters."
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
They can't TRULY co-exist because science would disprove it. They clash. You mean you haven't wondered why all these new Christian theories are coming up all of a sudden, as baseless as they are? Someone (or some people) up on the Christian food chain, the guys/gals making all the cash and using their "minions" to do their bidding… they are afraid that science is about to put a stake through the heart of religion.
Science disproves religion and furthers humanity.
Religion hinders humanity and science.
How could they TRULY co-exist? Evidence today that Christians have known for centuries? How's THAT for brain washing?
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
actually penn and teller did a series on the bible and concluded it was bunk…lol…
religion cant co exist because its illogical… just like any religion of the past… would it be logical for people to believe in ra the sun god? or worship the sun or the wind… doesnt make sense…
now with that said… the moral teachingscan be revised and married to science and philosophy to form a new logical faith…
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
You raise a good point, Gus. Yes, the world was covered entirely with water some 4 billion years ago, but not since then. And, the only forms of life around at that time were simple single-celled organisms – no giraffe, horse, cow, sheep, or Noah and his family. Christians “knew” about the inundation because they read some popular myth about it and mistakenly accepted the myth as fact based entirely on faith – no investigation, no analysis, no questions asked. That is why religion has not, cannot, and never will be able to coexist with science. Science demands questioning, investigation and analysis. Religion forbids it.
DellU_IowaState - January 30th, 2010
exactly jerry, they took it from the story of gilgamesh… gus, like jerry said, the world was covered with water, but that was billions of years ago… the bible says it happened 6200yrs ago… yet there are several established civilizations that never heard of a great flood that were around long before, and long after the supposed flood… most of the stories in the old testament can be found to originate from another culture… christians would have a fit if they knew what they believed in came from pagan religions…lol
gerkshinobi - January 30th, 2010
What do you think the Judeo-Christians would think if they ever found out that much of the Pentateuch came from the Code of Hammurabi, which was handed to Hammurabi by a god — the sun god Shamash! I wonder how they would feel if they knew that Yahweh plagiarized from Shamash.
celtics - January 30th, 2010
Earth was only ever completely covered by water in the solid form
This is in response to Jerry's comment on my "boundaries" ideas. You're caught up on the concept of "skin." "Skin" is a noun, and nouns are human simplifications. In an infinitely complex universe (or approaching thus), there is no "skin." Your body is constantly shedding skin, secreting oils, exchanging gases, and replacing skin with material from outside the body.
"Skin" is a verb.
Another example is the "sun." Where does the sun end? The sun could be said to extend as far as its light travels: the sun's "photosphere," so to say. Where does the earth end? it is constantly "bleeding" atmosphere into space.
The truth is, one can only define boundaries by drawing an imaginary line in space where less than a certain percent (or probability, as the case may be) of an entity may exist. Think electron orbitals.
DellU_IowaState - January 30th, 2010
That is an interesting postulate, Gafar. A noun is nothing but a name to identify a person, place, or thing. A noun has no affect on the named thing. A noun allows us to carry on conversations and know what each other is talking about.
I grant you that skin is always sloughing, but that is nothing more than a natural process of discarding dead cells. Our gas exchange is provided by osmosis via the lungs, not our skin. If skin were not a demarcation between our bodies and the “outside” world, why do we not dissolve when immersed in the universal solvent, water? Why are we most prone to invasion though the openings in our skin (ears, eyes, nose, mouth, cuts, etc.)? Why is there a definite vector change of flow of particles between the skin and the outside world?
Ah, but is the light from the sun a part of the sun? Are the photons leaving the sun part of the sun or a product of fission? Is fission a part of the sun or a process the sun utilizes? The same holds true with the CO2 that we respire. Is it part of us, the universe or a byproduct of the oxidation process that it going on in our bodies? Sure, we did inhale some CO2, but we exhale more than we inhale.
What about a black hole’s event horizon? Is that not a one way boundary?
Are boundaries really imaginary lines demarking an entity or are they truly part of the entity? Is skin really an imaginary line or an extremely effective envelope for our body?
DellU_IowaState - January 30th, 2010
The heliopause, corona, shells in the electron cloud, layers in a geologic, atmospheric, or water column, and skin are all natural occurring boundaries not defined by language but by function, structure, contents, energy level, or influence. Are boundaries are defined by language or described by it?
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
They are defined by language. I feel like I have failed to explain it well enough.
Every single boundary is scale dependent. That's what I am trying to say. It's not a pragmatic way of thinking, I agree, but you don't seem to understand what I am saying at all. Zoom in to smaller (atomic) scales for each example you gave. Each "boundary" (geologic, atmospheric, water) is really a sharp <i>gradation</i> on the atomic scale.
Also, electron shells are DEFINED by statistics. They represent the regions in space where it is of the highest probability to find an electron at any given infinitesimal instant of time. Technically, an electron could be 80 meters from the nucleus (low probability) or 2 picometers from the nucleus (high probablity) at any given instant.
If you really think about it, there are no definitive, absolute boundaries within the universe. Exceptions and gray areas are the rule.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
I understand what you are saying, Gafar. I just do not agree with it. I do not have a microscope powerful enough to view a water molecule, but can imagine the two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms would be clearly discernable. I may certainly be wrong. But if they are discernable, what are the distinguishing characteristics and are they delimited by a discernable boundary?
If one looks at the interface between the atmosphere and skin, is there not a distinguishing layer where the atmosphere ends and skin begins? Take the vector of oxygen atoms for example. At some point we should see a horizon where the vector of the oxygen atoms of the sloughed skin is traveling in opposition to the oxygen atoms in the atmosphere. There should also be a point where the percentage of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, argon, etc. atoms per square nanometer change drastically when going from atmosphere to skin. Is that point not a boundary?
Does the boundary really disappear when zoomed in so closely or is it an optical illusion due to lack of perspective? I don’t know since I have never had the privilege to use a microscope that is powerful enough to view it.
I understand your point of view, but like you said, it is not necessarily a pragmatic way of thinking. I am limited to mental experimentation and in my mind I can always see an edge, boundary, or horizon. It is not that I am defining them that way it is the way that I imagine them to be. I would jump at the chance to whack a hunk of skin from my body and put it in a microscope powerful enough to zoom into the interface. I am sure I would not only be amazed, but enlightened. But, until then I am left only with my imagination.
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
Yeah, which brings me to the point that our concept of "being" (defined in language by nouns) is fundamentally flawed. The only thing that "IS" is everything. You cannot simplify past that and still retain all the information in the universe.
<i>If one looks at the interface between the atmosphere and skin, is there
not a distinguishing layer where the atmosphere ends and skin begins?</i>
My whole point is "No," there is no clear way to distinguish them in the absolute sense, because they are all part of the same universe… just different chemical arrangements thereof.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
<i>but can imagine the two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms would be clearly discernable.</i>
They are not, by definition of the atom and MORB theory. Electron orbitals overlap.
<i>There should also be a point where the percentage of oxygen,
nitrogen, carbon, argon, etc. atoms per square nanometer change
drastically when going from atmosphere to skin. Is that point not a
boundary?</i>
It is only a boundary because we define it as a boundary. It does not exist in the absolute sense. Just because the percentage of, say, nitrogen drops by 99% at what we call the air-skin boundary does not mean the nitrogen is gone, or part of another entity. Plus, this is ignoring the fact that there is always going to be a gradation (over a very very small distance) on the molecular level. Switching to an even smaller scale gets back to the orbital stuff.
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
If you want to retain ALL of the information in the universe, you cannot simplify data. Therefore, you cannot draw boundaries, because there are always exceptions to those boundaries (gradations, outliers). Therefore, labels, in language, are not adequate for describing the universe in infinite detail.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
Gafar, you are correct in your views that nouns are merely a way for Humans to compress verbal and written data. However, your point of view would need to be shared by the entire world, and intellectually speaking it, like the abolishment of religion, is just something that we are not ready for as humankind. It is important to say that everyone with a clear thought should see the sun and almost everything else (only as a disclaimer as I am not omniscient) as a verb, as you stated.
But, the beauty of it all is that I think we are just at a step again. A rock is a rock, and not the collection of molecules it is composed of. While a music composer might look at a score and compose melodies in his mind, a person not as well versed might see some notes and a few lines. But that oversimplification is merely that, a tool to separate the artists from the common.
While the intelligent people will see your views, at this point there is not much reason to accept it as our own. But I have been seeing things as verbs for a long time now, and at times even watch ants crawl across my countertop and know that they might survive where I would not. I see the verb of an ever changing life.
But simplification might serve us a purpose when there is no need to be accurate. After all, calling a horse a horse is far easier than calling it what it "truly" is. But from what I can understand, you are not really explaining the whole noun/verb thing. Your original comment was merely explaining how everything (noun) is actually a process (verb) which can be linked back to the universe as a whole (point and case). I would say it is accurate and agree, but I am quite fond of the simplification – even if I do see exactly what you mean and agree with it.
This exchanging of ideas has been amazing and I thank all of you bright minds for participating. I can read all of these comments a few times over and still not get bored of them. I'll be copying this down to a word processor, that's for sure.
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
Ah, "…are not adequate for describing the universe in infinite detail."
I agree. But we do not perceive the universe in infinite detail nor do we concern ourselves with ALL the information in the universe when we wish to design an enclosure for, say water gardening.
Labels are practical for describing the universe in the everyday scale that we experience it. Labels help keep us from bruising our face because we learn that walls, while defined and constructed by man, are something we cannot walk through (at least without damaging our face or the wall). Doorways are openings in walls, but having a doorway (an exception) does not negate the fact that the wall is a boundary that clearly delimitates a space. We know that a screen door, while it does not block everything, is an effective boundary to keep my dogs inside and the flies, beetles, and other relatively large insects outside, and allow a flow of fresh air to enter the house and stale air to exit it. The EPDM that lines our pond is a boundary that neither water nor fish penetrate, which is more than practical for me because I enjoy watching the fish and it keeps my water bill down, and I could care less that it does not restrain sub-atomic particles.
Practical boundaries do exist in the universe. While it does not have a clearly defined boundary between its molecules and the atmosphere, the tennis net is an affective boundary between the sides of the court. All tennis matches are scored on how effectively the players can detect boundaries and keep the tennis ball within those boundaries.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
yeah the monkey trial… stick to the old beliefs or move on the the future…
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
Michael, is it natural selection or artificial selection since we have artificially modified the insects’ environment? Nevertheless, it does clearly illustrate evolution.
alaskatravelgrm - January 30th, 2010
environmental adaptation… life has a way of finding a foothold in every environment on earth… look at the worms that live around sulfer chimneys on the bottom of the ocean… or the insect in the desert, or the bacteria in the arctic… life is everywhere… here and throughout our universe…
celtics - January 30th, 2010
Jerry, that's still natural selection, not artificial–despite the fact that humans are changing the environment of the insects, we are not choosing individual insects and mating them. Artificial selection is breeding–i.e. choosing certain inviduals, isolating them, and intentionally having them to mate for their traits and genes.
J_Kaye - January 30th, 2010
Thanks for the clarification, guys. I wanted to be clear on the subject.
gerkshinobi - January 30th, 2010
I think people keep missing the point of her question. She is asking why is it being taught as "fact". She did not ask why is it being taught as "theory".
While there may be "facts" used to support the "theory" they do not in-and-of-themselves make the "theory" a "fact".
So, back to her original question…Why is it being taught as "FACT"?
~Neeva
DellU_IowaState - January 30th, 2010
Neeva,
Have you read the whole discussion? That question must have been answered a few times already.
SweetSpiced - January 31st, 2010
it has been answered several times… everyone who knows and understands science can plainly see it is a fact… but i do not know of any schools who are teaching evolution as fact… to say it is just a theory undermines the entire idea of what a theory actually is…
this is why they dont teach creation in school… maybe someday they will, right next to greek mythology…
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
Neeva, she asked “Why is evolution taught as FACT…”. Fact is something that is known to be true. Evolution can be observed, thus it is known to be true. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is a set of facts, propositions and principles used to explain the phenomena. The theory of evolution is also fact (anyone can sit down it read it, the theory exists, thus it is fact). However, the contents of the theory may or may not be fact. Whether the content of the theory is fact should be left for the student to decide.
DellU_IowaState - January 31st, 2010
The only evolution that can be observed is macro. This is not generally what "evolutionists" are concerned about when someone mentions teaching evolution in school. At least I don't think it is.
The "theory of evolution" is comprised of some facts. However, whether or not these facts actually demonstrate that the "theory of evolution" is correct cannot be determined with absolute certainty.
The fact that I can sit down and read that a "theory of evolution" exists does not make it a fact. To paraphrase some popular atheists "the flying spaghetti monster exists". This is their theory (in jest of course). Well, I can read about it. There are even cute little pictures. However, it does not prove that a "flying spaghetti monster" actually exists. Thus, that theory is not fact.
Whether or not the "contents" of a theory are fact is extremely important. If I create a theory and then deliberately make up all my "facts" being sure to design them in such a way as to make it impossible to disprove them I would have made a factual theory according to your definition. The students could decide for themselves whether they were true or not. Obviously this would not be accepted as legitimate.
~Neeva
AnnaRichenda - January 31st, 2010
Actually, microevolution has not only been observed in the laboratory, but in the field as well. It is observed in DNA, the development of our embryos, and the birds of the Galapagos.
Of course, the theory of evolution, as it relates to the origin of species, is just a theory. We may never know with certainty the exact sequence of events that caused single celled organisms to mutate into the current species that exist today. That, however, is of little consequence. Sure it would be nice to know the exact chain of events that led to, say, a giraffe, but it is not a prerequisite for knowing the natural process of evolution is fact.
Evolution is fact. The exact chain of events that got us here (the origin of species) is debatable.
Please give me an example of designed fact that cannot be proven. If I saw one I will change my position.
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
"designed fact" presupposes that it is already fact. So, I am not sure that I can produce anything that disproves a fact.
However, I may not have understood what you were asking.
~Neeva
seancurtis - January 31st, 2010
It seems like Neeva would deny their own gender if the bible said so. I'd let it rest.
Evolution by natural selection is fact. Period. Life changes to adapt to new environments. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. <b>It's proven.</b> Period.
Gravity is fact. It's proven. Period.
The earth is round. It's a fact. Proven. Period.
celtics - January 31st, 2010
Neeva, my typo. You stated in your comment “If I create a theory and then deliberately make up all my "facts" being sure to design them in such a way as to make it impossible to disprove them…”
I was curious to see a sample of designed fact which could be used in a theory, yet could not be disproved.
DellU_IowaState - January 31st, 2010
the flying spaghetti monster is not a theory neeva, it is a rational hypothesis created by atheists to prove a point… there is no less evidence for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster than there is a god…
facts cannot be designed, either they are tested and found true, or tested and found false…
i had a beer with an adventist christian tonight, she plainly disagreed with what i was saying… she did not know anything about christianity other than what she was told to believe, yet she still argued my points without any knowledge of what we were discussing… this is the logic of most religious people, they claim they are right, yet only yell louder when asked a simple question…
how can one deny such overwhelming evidence… do you fear losing your faith if you learn? do you fear not going to heaven if you seek knowledge?
god can be anything you want it to be… just know what it is you believe… my friend kyle still believes in god, yet knows the universe is 13bn yrs old and humans evolved… he sees god as the order that binds the proton with the electron, the planet to the star…
release the ancient notion that a vengeful god is looking over you, judging you… this is primitive… there is a world of knowledge that awaits, and none of it will kill your god…
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
Actually I am quite interested in learning. I seek opportunities to entertain new ideas. When someone says they have the "facts" I look into these as well. However, many times people have claimed to have the "facts" only to find out that they were wrong when new information was available for the first time (perhaps because of improved technology).
Evolutionists have a much larger faith in their theory than I do in God. The very idea of evolution flies in the face of all other science. Everywhere else it is taught that energy always seeks its lowest state. But with evolution order comes from chaos. That's a pretty big stretch.
I see the evolutionist as focusing on a set of varied facts and then manufacturing a scenario in which if they put them together in a certain way it proves their theory. This theory is something that "makes sense". It is based upon ideas and concepts that they are comfortable with. Something that brings order to their world. This is a text book definition of faith.
You can't currently travel back in time to test your theory. You have no way to unify your facts with certainty to prove your theory.
You are not in any better position than I am to prove what you believe.
~Neeva
seancurtis - January 31st, 2010
Neeva, there are two points in your comment that intrigue me. 1 “Evolutionist have a much larger faith in their theory that I do in God” and 2. “But with evolution order comes from chaos”.
Faith, being the belief or trust in someone or something, especially without logical proof, cannot be used to describe what evolutionist know. There is empirical evidence of evolution. Evolution does not require faith to know it, all it requires is observation.
I, personally, would not classify life as orderly. When I look at evolution and life, I see a mishmash collection of randomness. Where, for example, is the order in DNA? When you look at the human genome, it looks more like a random sequence of proteins more than it does an orderly construction of a construct for a life form. If you were to write the program for life on this planet, would you have included viruses? Or for that matter, would you have emotions located in the primitive brain where they are in direct conflict with the higher functions of the brain or would you have a totally purpose built brain without the obvious evolutionary pieces that make up our brain?
You also cannot travel back in time to prove the creation theory and you cannot rely on the narratives created by man to be accurate. Which requires faith; knowing that there is empirical evidence and relying on your rational thought processes to infer evolution, or believing in the stories conjured up thousands of years ago by men whose veracity you will never be able to ascertain?
When one takes time to analyze it, one’s faith is not actually in god, but in those who proclaim there is a god that people should put their faith in.
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
Neeva said "The very idea of evolution flies in the face of all other science. Everywhere else it is taught that energy always seeks its lowest state. But with evolution order comes from chaos. That's a pretty big stretch."
Indeed, if that were true, it would be a stretch. In what way to you see evolution as ordered? It's pretty random. So many mutations occur that don't make it. They cannot compete, but every now and then, some change occurs that CAN compete. If it competes too well, it can knock off other competitors. (Humans are very good at this.)
seancurtis - January 31st, 2010
exactly… thats why christians revised their debate with intelligent design and was laughed out of the room…
alaskatravelgrm - January 31st, 2010
I'm not sure why it'd be laughed out of the room. It's religious people who are intelligent enough to know evolution is real and try to meld the two so as not to lose the religious following. Those actions make sense, even if religion doesn't to you or me.
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
there are no other theories of origins… there are other ideas and hypothesis of origins like the biblical creation… but evolution is the only theory…
i agree it would be ignorant to not learn alternatives…
DellU_IowaState - January 31st, 2010
Evolution has this little thing called "all of LOGICAL DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION" behind it.
seancurtis - January 31st, 2010
the problem with creationism is there are no scientific facts to support the claim, as evolution does… i completely agree with your ps… leave religion in the designated places, leave science in the classrooms…
J_Kaye - January 31st, 2010
At least gravity is something that can still be tested against.
~Neeva
SweetSpiced - January 31st, 2010
Evolution is proven every day.
tracyyoungtv - January 31st, 2010
evolution was and is being tested against all the time, thats why it holds the title of a scientific theory…
the religious have this made up notion that any old idea can be called a theory… this is not so… its very difficult for something to be labeled a theory…
DellU_IowaState - January 31st, 2010
So why is it that the more fervent religious proponents cannot accept what should be so obvious to anyone with an objective mind?
SweetSpiced - January 31st, 2010
I think evolution and religion are both two sides of the same story; both written, interpreted, and recorded by man. If God created the world in "one day," who is to say how long one day is to an infinite being or how he did it? Maybe he enjoyed watching life evolve with a tweak here and there. Seems he's still watching life evolve with a tweak here and there.