Originally posted by darkfan76
I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.
Thanks, since this was aimed at helping me understand some stuff, but I'm a de-coverted Catholic who was brought up in the faith until about age 20, so I'm well-versed in their beliefs and tendencies.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I didn't state that "evolution was wrong", I simply stated it was not a scientific law. 😬
This is a pretty general statement, so I can't really endorse or refute it. Basically, though, the more I learn about evolution as we currently understand it, the more I realize that a lot of people don't understand it...or worse, they pretend to.
If someone wants to see what questions evolution does and doesn't answer, read up on it and figure it out. Because the complexities of evolution aren't things that can be explained in useful KMC sound bites, even though many try. When someone asks a uestion like "How does evolution explain altruism?" there's a definite, verified scientific answer to it, but it requires a working knowledge of many underlying evolutionary processes before you reach the point of explaining something as complex as genetic altruism.
So there, I think I'm done in this thread. I did my best summarization (woefully inept, probably) about a page ago. From this point on, I simply wish to encourage people to learn more on their own to understand the issue.
Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.
As far as I understand, I may be incorrect, there are many laws that have loops holes or inconsisties and are only theories....not saying this nor that,..but.Oops, found a new one that disproves the old one................Ya now...........My questions have never been answered on this form.............
Hows the fries in your country? 😄
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Just out of interest can you give an example of something that is "scientific law" and explain the reason why it is an evolution isn't?
Scientific law is a principle that is irrefutable, Newtons Three laws of motions are a good example. Evolution isn't a scientific law because it stll has a lot answers to give.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.As far as I understand, I may be incorrect, there are many laws that have loops holes or inconsisties and are only theories....not saying this nor that,..but.Oops, found a new one that disproves the old one................Ya now...........My questions have never been answered on this form.............
The thing about science is that established laws are always being tested over and over again. A scientific law only remains one if it's fool proof, otherwise it's just a theory.
ALL scientific ideas are theories. It's what seperates science from dogmatic religions. The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is a "theory". Calling it that doesn't invalidate it.
Evolution is similarly justified, and has been for decades, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know a ton on the subject or is pushing a religious agenda. We've added nuances to the theory since its inception, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, but as far as the general theory goes, nothing has come along to prove even Darwin wrong, let alone his more exacting scientific descendants, and any meticulously researched material only strengthens the argument.
It isn't a catch-all theory that includes religion and consciousness (thoough it posits theories on this, some more agreeable than others) and all manner of other scientific realms, things that critics try to cite as reasons for invalidating evolution. It's a biological process. Trying to broaden its scope beyond what it should be again would show a lack of knowledge or ulterior motives.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Wouldn't there be a difference between Genetic Altruism and Moral Altruism?
You could make that distinction, sure. We aren't conscious of our genetic programming, whether it's selfish or altruistic, so on an individual level it seems to possess morality. But it's essentially the same thing, with the genetic predisposition of our genes working its way outward until it manifests itself as individual human acts that work toward the preservation of those genes.
We can certainly learn forms of altruism that aren't necessarily consistent with our genetic programming, via our refined memory and cognitive processes, environmental and cultural influences, and possible other factors, but the intelligence used to do that is itself a mechanism that evolved for the purposes of gene survival.
So yes, we can overcome our genes selfishness, but only to a certain extent (I use the term "selfish" loosely...genes aren't at the cognitive level to be selfish...they are merely structured in such a way that it is convenient to label them as such).
Originally posted by DigiMark007
ALL scientific ideas are theories. It's what seperates science from dogmatic religions. The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is a "theory". Calling it that doesn't invalidate it.Evolution is similarly justified, and has been for decades, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know a ton on the subject or is pushing a religious agenda. We've added nuances to the theory since its inception, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, but as far as the general theory goes, nothing has come along to prove even Darwin wrong, let alone his more exacting scientific descendants, and any meticulously researched material only strengthens the argument.
Yes, Yes, But there is a difference between Scientific law and Scientific theory. True, they aren't dogmatic, but that isn't the point. To be a Scientific law, said principle would have to be irrefutable versus a Scientific Theory which has a working model but a few detractors or holes. Evolution fits in with the later.
I agree with what you said though, Evolution has not gone unchallenged ever since it's birth by any other working model . But, it has changed alot from the time it was hypothesised by Darwin. People tend to take it as a fact because it's been around for such a while without any legitimate opposition, but at the end of the day it's still a theory. Will it remain one, is another story.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.
Yes, there is scientific law, just because science changes doesn't mean there a such things as laws. It's just that laws are challenged, because that is the nature of science.
LAW1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain"😉 a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Yes, Yes, But there is a difference between Scientific law and Scientific theory. True, they aren't dogmatic, but that isn't the point. To be a Scientific law, said principle would have to be irrefutable versus a Scientific Theory which has a working model but a few detractors or holes. Evolution fits in with the later.I agree with what you said though, Evolution has not gone unchallenged ever since it's birth by any other working model . But, it has changed alot from the time it was hypothesised by Darwin. People tend to take it as a fact because it's been around for such a while without any legitimate opposition, but at the end of the day it's still a theory. Will it remain one, is another story.
I think you're misconstruing terms. Scientists don't have such a things as "scientific law". There's only probable and accepted theories. But like I said, the only serious advocates against evolution are either misinformed or blinded by religion. Even something like the First "Law" of Thermodynamics can be called into question by, say, Quantum Mechanics (at a microscopic level...in functional macro terms it still holds up admirably).
I think you're looking for me to validate evolution beyond saying that it's an accepted theory within the scientific community, but I won't, because that would be a false distinction simply to artificially reinforce my point. If you don't want to accept it as a fact, ok. That's your prerogative. But the onus of proof is on those who would choose to disbelieve it as an explanation of much of human behavior and animal action (again, learning about it is the best way to decide what exactly it does cover).
Scientists, for example, act as though the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics is a "fact" because that's the most widely supported theory we currently have. It helps to treat it as a fact as a means toward other truths. If everything was treated as an unproven theory, we'd never get anywhere with our discoveries. But that doesn't mean it's a "law" like the speed limit is for driving or somesuch.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraCrunchy? Oh I hope so...............
I'm not really a fries person, give me a chip or wedge, something with a bit of meat on it (well, potato meat anyway.)But they aren't to bad, depends on where you get them.
What's the topic again? Moses? Hell? Hmm,......must get some fries.
[edit] Pope ...must be nice.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think you're misconstruing terms. Scientists don't have such a things as "scientific law".
Yes, they do. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Originally posted by DigiMark007I think you're looking for me to validate evolution beyond saying that it's an accepted theory within the scientific community
I'm not asking anything other than telling you that there is a difference between Scientific law and Theory. Wether it's law or theory does not invalidate evolution. 😬
Oddly, I've never heard of the distinction. But meh, it's kind of a moot point. Evolution stirs such controversy that its status would likely depend on who you're asking. And I trust that what you're saying is true, but as a rule I don't trust wiki. But I'll be sure to keep my eyes open for it in the future.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't you like fries???I'm sure the Pope does. 😎
Pope fries! Now with 30% more Jesus in every bite!
I'd eat them.
😐
Originally posted by InnerRiseCatholicism is more flexible than most Protestant Christian churches when it comes to science because it is more based on an adherence to doctrine rather than scripture.
Just recently the Pope stated that it is [B]POSSIBLE to believe in both the teachings of the Bible and the Laws of Evolution.I remember someone else saying this just recently on these boards as well....hmmm...........I wonder who........
Anata Wa Wakarimasu Ka..... [/B]
Therefore, because most high-profile Protestants are Evangelical fundamentalists (who believe that the Bible is inerrant), evolution is much more of a pickle for Protestants.