rant: "...Just a Theory"

dmw16

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2000
7,608
0
0
I have been hearing a lot of people talk about this whole ID being taught in science class thing - I dont think it belongs there but that isnt the point of this post (as there is already a post about it).

What is really ticking me off is all these people saying "it's just a theory." For something to become a SCIENTIFIC theory it takes a lot of evidence to support it. Few people would argue with relitivity or gravitational theory. But they are "just" theories too.

That is all. Just had to get that off my chest.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,225
4,460
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's only a hypothesis, actually.

No, it is a theory. It has been tested, and we are now able to make accurate predictions with it.
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
When I was in high school, my Biology class started something like this:

This curriculum is based solely on the tenants of evolution, which is accepted universally in the established scientific community as fact. If you have a problem with this and feel that you will be unable or in any way unwilling to participate, please raise your hand. Suspend your disbelief if you must, but if you object in any way now, please identify yourself so I can save my time grading your papers and just fail you out now.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,503
14,180
136
Originally posted by: acemcmac
When I was in high school, my Biology class started something like this:

This curriculum is based solely on the tenants of evolution, which is accepted universally in the established scientific community as fact. If you have a problem with this and feel that you will be unable or in any way unwilling to participate, please raise your hand. Suspend your disbelief if you must, but if you object in any way now, please identify yourself so I can save my time grading your papers and just fail you out now.

Heh... when was this?
 

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
Originally posted by: dmw16
I have been hearing a lot of people talk about this whole ID being taught in science class thing - I dont think it belongs there but that isnt the point of this post (as there is already a post about it).

What is really ticking me off is all these people saying "it's just a theory." For something to become a SCIENTIFIC theory it takes a lot of evidence to support it. Few people would argue with relitivity or gravitational theory. But they are "just" theories too.

That is all. Just had to get that off my chest.

Yes, there is a beefy chunk of irony built into people who do not understand the basic scientific concepts of "hypothesis," "theory," and "law," trying to dictate scientific curricula.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: dmw16
I have been hearing a lot of people talk about this whole ID being taught in science class thing - I dont think it belongs there but that isnt the point of this post (as there is already a post about it).

What is really ticking me off is all these people saying "it's just a theory." For something to become a SCIENTIFIC theory it takes a lot of evidence to support it. Few people would argue with relitivity or gravitational theory. But they are "just" theories too.

That is all. Just had to get that off my chest.

Yes, there is a beefy chunk of irony built into people who do not understand the basic scientific concepts of "hypothesis," "theory," and "law," trying to dictate scientific curricula.

Some of them understand it pretty well, but choose to reject it in favor of teaching morally-approved religious dogma.

If this kind of thing continues, the US will cease to be a world superpower and will instead become some bastardized form of Christian theocracy.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
Agreed.. along with the idiots who say ID is a theory just like evolution.
ID is NOT A THEORY, it's a MYTH.
Evolution, on the other hand, as you said is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. That's as factual as it gets. Electricity is a scientific theory, so is atomic theory. We take all of those as facts. Evolution is no different. It has been tested and backed up to the same degree.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
I hate when people on both sides of the argument who say either ID or evolution is "proven", and even more I hate when people so fervently defend either when they know virtually nothing themselves on the subject. ID shouldn't be even raised in a science class until it is a sound theory and evolution should be tought only as theory. It shouldn't be tought at the elementary, middle, or high school levels IMO, though, as there is no need for it and it is not a theory that can be experimentially proven, unlike gravity or atomic theory, for example.

 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate when people on both sides of the argument who say either ID or evolution is "proven", and even more I hate when people so fervently defend either when they know virtually nothing themselves on the subject. ID shouldn't be even raised in a science class until it is a sound theory and evolution should be tought only as theory. It shouldn't be tought at the elementary, middle, or high school levels IMO, though, as there is no need for it and it is not a theory that can be experimentially proven, unlike gravity or atomic theory, for example.

Ah I see the irony in your post.
Go take a biology class and you'll learn that evolution IS a scientific theory, just like gravity or the atomic theory.
Macro evolution and abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but evolution is, and is proven over and over again.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate when people on both sides of the argument who say either ID or evolution is "proven", and even more I hate when people so fervently defend either when they know virtually nothing themselves on the subject. ID shouldn't be even raised in a science class until it is a sound theory and evolution should be tought only as theory. It shouldn't be tought at the elementary, middle, or high school levels IMO, though, as there is no need for it and it is not a theory that can be experimentially proven, unlike gravity or atomic theory, for example.

Ah I see the irony in your post.
Go take a biology class and you'll learn that evolution IS a scientific theory, just like gravity or the atomic theory.
Macro evolution and abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but evolution is, and is proven over and over again.

Macro evolution is what the argument is about, and IS theory. You cannot experimentially prove that it occurs.

Comparing evolution to gravity is ridiculous.

Note: Unless I specifically say "micro evolution", I mean "macro" evolution.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate when people on both sides of the argument who say either ID or evolution is "proven", and even more I hate when people so fervently defend either when they know virtually nothing themselves on the subject. ID shouldn't be even raised in a science class until it is a sound theory and evolution should be tought only as theory. It shouldn't be tought at the elementary, middle, or high school levels IMO, though, as there is no need for it and it is not a theory that can be experimentially proven, unlike gravity or atomic theory, for example.

Ah I see the irony in your post.
Go take a biology class and you'll learn that evolution IS a scientific theory, just like gravity or the atomic theory.
Macro evolution and abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but evolution is, and is proven over and over again.

Macro evolution is what the argument is about, and IS theory. You cannot experimentially prove that it occurs.

Comparing evolution to gravity is ridiculous.

Note: Unless I specifically say "micro evolution", I mean "macro" evolution.

Thanks for saving me the time to bold that word.
Anyone who has reasonable knowledge in science has seen that word spelled so many times, that it isn't reasonable to spell it incorrectly. A typo would be acceptable, but that isn't a typo. Thus, I think you've provided sufficient evidence that your opinion, in matters related to science, is immaterial.

There actually *IS* evidence of macro-evolution. However, creationists generally prefer to disregard this evidence. Nonetheless, you may refer to this well written document which does show evidence for macroevolution.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,365
8,475
126
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's only a hypothesis, actually.

No, it is a theory. It has been tested, and we are now able to make accurate predictions with it.

ID?
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
Yep there is VAST evidence for macro-evolution, but it just hasn't been observed yet under scientifically controlled tests, thus is not considered a scientific theory.
As I said, take a few bio classes. Once you have to learn about 10 different bacteria, 15 different viruses, 15 different fungi, 5 different ferns, 30 different trees, 15 different worms, etc etc.. you'll learn how all these species connect and link together on an evolutionary scale. Many of these are literally prototypes of prototypes. It's no coincidence that the fossil record shows fishes first, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals. They're all a small step to the next species. It's evolutionary. There are multiple prototypes of an eye, many as simple as a few photoreceptors that can detect light. Same thing with hearing. Hearing is just a nerve attached to a vibrating bone. Crocodiles actually use their jaw as their ears. It is said that mammal's ears is a modification of the jaw bone. There is OVERWHELMING evidence for macro evolution. Just take time time to learn it before you denounce it.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, with the only difference being time, and it's based on observation, which is more than you can say about intelligent design, creationism, or any of that magical mumbo jumbo!
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, with the only difference being time, and it's based on observation, which is more than you can say about intelligent design, creationism, or any of that magical mumbo jumbo!

Not quite. See the link I provided a few posts up.

Also, if you read Utah's stance in this thread, you can point other IDers toward it.
 

Kanalua

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
4,860
2
81
Didn't Phoebe ruin the whole "theory of evolution" thing?





(this is a Friends reference by the way)
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate when people on both sides of the argument who say either ID or evolution is "proven", and even more I hate when people so fervently defend either when they know virtually nothing themselves on the subject. ID shouldn't be even raised in a science class until it is a sound theory and evolution should be tought only as theory. It shouldn't be tought at the elementary, middle, or high school levels IMO, though, as there is no need for it and it is not a theory that can be experimentially proven, unlike gravity or atomic theory, for example.

Ah I see the irony in your post.
Go take a biology class and you'll learn that evolution IS a scientific theory, just like gravity or the atomic theory.
Macro evolution and abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but evolution is, and is proven over and over again.

Macro evolution is what the argument is about, and IS theory. You cannot experimentially prove that it occurs.

Comparing evolution to gravity is ridiculous.

Note: Unless I specifically say "micro evolution", I mean "macro" evolution.

You need to learn what a theory is. You call evolution a theory, say it's BS, and then say gravity is good, yet gravity is just the theory of general relativity.

I haven't taken very much biology, but never have I seen in a single bio class macro evolution being taught as truth. Sure they say the dinosaurs lived 100 million years ago, and tell you the parts of the cell, but I was never once taught that some chemicals mixed together in a pool and turned into me a few billion years later.