Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

Bill Nye the Science guy is going to debate on evolution vs creationism on 2/4. It should be a respectful debate on the topic that will help many of people understand the concept of biological evolution.

Wow... I knew this thread would be.... contentious, but still...As I see it a big part of the problem is people don't understand the word "Theory". There are two definitions of the word, the two definitions are similar but separate enough that when using the word care must be taken. You see to a layman theory simply means a "supposition" or an "idea" in science however Theory has a much more demanding definition. A theory must be testable, reproducible and must be repeatedly confirmed through testing. To dismiss a scientific idea as just a random thought just because it is a "Theory" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of Scientific Process. As far as science is concerned everything is just a theory. Gravity is a theory, the earth rotating around the sun is a theory, the ground existing below us is theory, water being wet is a theory, and yes evolution is a theory. Evolution is well documented though, it is well understood (no not perfectly), and we have seen examples of evolution in progress. This does not, to my mind, put religion at odds with science, there is no conflict. The bible (and every other religious text) is full of allegory, I think Mason's understand this better than many others. God creating the world in 7 days is not contradictory to the geological and biological evolution taking countless eons.

Aeelorty said:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

Bill Nye the Science guy is going to debate on evolution vs creationism on 2/4. It should be a respectful debate on the topic that will help many of people understand the concept of biological evolution.

Click to expand...

It's hosted by "The Creation Museum". You'll pardon me if I don't expect a level playing field. Kudo's to Bill, though, for taking this on regardless of the venue.

CuAllaidh said:

The bible (and every other religious text) is full of allegory...

Click to expand...

Says you.

Alas, many believers will tell you that, "No. The Bible is complete and unerring word of God." Still more will feel free to pick and choose which passages to interpret as allegory and which to take literally. It's all good, as long as we can all be reasonable and recognize that it's belief we're talking about here, not verifiable fact, or even "mere scientific theory".As Thomas Jefferson put it, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It's only when one group of believers feels the need to impose their beliefs on others that problems arise, and that is something every Mason should understand completely.

JohnnyFlotsam said:

"No. The Bible is complete and unerring word of God."

Click to expand...

To which one answers "What is the Biblical value of pi?"

BryanMaloney said:

To which one answers "What is the Biblical value of pi?"

Click to expand...

3

CuAllaidh said:

A theory must be testable, reproducible and must be repeatedly confirmed through testing. To dismiss a scientific idea as just a random thought just because it is a "Theory" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of Scientific Process. As far as science is concerned everything is just a theory. Gravity is a theory, the earth rotating around the sun is a theory, the ground existing below us is theory, water being wet is a theory, and yes evolution is a theory. Evolution is well documented though, it is well understood (no not perfectly), and we have seen examples of evolution in progress.

Click to expand...

Every theory must have numerical error bars to describe its current level of uncertainty - How many digits of accuracy are there in its numerical predictions. Most fields of science do not see mention of these error bars in public discourse. The example that is in public is climatology - The stated certainty is 95%. That means the error bar is 5%. That means predictions of climatology are accurate to one and a half digits. Among scientific fields that's actually pretty miserable. The science of evolution has progressed to the point of genetic engineering. While the effects of gene changes are currently very uncertain, the fact that deliberate gene changes effect offspring and the fact that gene changes consist of changing DNA means evolution is accurate to several digits and it has been since Watson and Crick. In fact its gotten better with epigenetics and phenol groups. Several digits sounds good when compared to climatology, but it isn't great when compared to inorganic chemistry. I've never touched a chemical lab instrument that gives results accurate enough to change any entry in any table of physical chemistry results. The current level of the error bar for inorganic chemistry is that many digits. In physics string theory didn't used to even make any predictions so it got called "not even wrong" because its error bar is 100%.

So when it comes to discussing fact versus theory the question becomes how many digits of accuracy. Saying that inorganic chemistry is fact reflects the reality of how many digits of accuracy its predictions have. If you disbelieve in inorganic chemistry that's equivalent to being surprised every time your car starts because you don't believe a lead acid battery works.

This does not, to my mind, put religion at odds with science, there is no conflict.

Click to expand...

On the one hand religion may chose to be in conflict with science. There are many religions in the world and only a few do. Most religions don't care about the conclusions of science. On the other hand science may not chose to be in conflict with religion. Science doesn't work that way. It's conclusions follow a process that does not care what any one religion teaches. Saying whether there is or is not conflict isn't up to science.

Great expansion on Theory.

dfreybur said:

On the one hand religion may chose to be in conflict with science. There are many religions in the world and only a few do. Most religions don't care about the conclusions of science. On the other hand science may not chose to be in conflict with religion. Science doesn't work that way. It's conclusions follow a process that does not care what any one religion teaches. Saying whether there is or is not conflict isn't up to science.

Click to expand...

I would argue that religion itself does not conflict with science, but rather certain religious fanatics choose to be in conflict with science, but that's just quibbling over minor details. Of course Science cannot be in conflict with religion, but again Scientists can choose to be in conflict. To me both sides that choose to see the other as opposing are fanatics and really need to gain a little perspective.

Here is a little article i found in todays Technology section of our local on-line news site that I thought I'd share

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...o-nature-article/story-fn5fsgyc-1226813438708

CuAllaidh said:

Great expansion on Theory.

I would argue that religion itself does not conflict with science, but rather certain religious fanatics choose to be in conflict with science, but that's just quibbling over minor details. Of course Science cannot be in conflict with religion, but again Scientists can choose to be in conflict. To me both sides that choose to see the other as opposing are fanatics and really need to gain a little perspective.

Click to expand...

I with you CuAllaidh some of these guys don't know what the word "Theory" means. We have several people here that think theory means trouth but they are mistaken.

jvarnell said:

I with you CuAllaidh some of these guys don't know what the word "Theory" means. We have several people here that think theory means trouth but they are mistaken.

Click to expand...

Based on your previous responses in this thread I am going to have to assume you missed my point and that you don't clearly understand what the word "Theory" means from a scientific point of view. I am not saying that because evolution is a theory that it might not be true, evolution is a fact, pure and simple, that doesn't make it less of a theory.

Saw this article in my Facebook feed, thought it relevant to the discussion: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/10-myths-misconceptions-and-mischaracterizations-of-evolution/


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App

CuAllaidh said:

Based on your previous responses in this thread I am going to have to assume you missed my point and that you don't clearly understand what the word "Theory" means from a scientific point of view. I am not saying that because evolution is a theory that it might not be true, evolution is a fact, pure and simple, that doesn't make it less of a theory.

Click to expand...

The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution. This is a just a theory and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted. As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys. You except them or or not.

Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.

Speaking of DNA changing anyone seen "Heroes"


Bro Book

jvarnell said:

The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution. This is a just a theory and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted. As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys. You except them or or not.

Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.

Click to expand...

Dismissing any science with the words "just a theory" only betrays ignorance of how science works in the real world. This has been hashed over before. The use of "theory" in the sciences is NOT how the word is vulgarly used. What is called "theory" vulgarly would be called a "hypothesis" in the sciences. Likewise, UNLIKE religious dogmas, science does not rely upon 100% infallibility in all minute details of every single thing a person said for one of that person's models to be valid. The way that a silly ENTERTAINMENT channel might use the word "theory" HAS NO BEARING AT ALL on how the term is used in the sciences. After all, we might as well flat-out reject the "germ theory of disease" as "just a theory"--after all the word "theory" appears in its name. Therefore, people can just reject it. Likewise peole can just go around pretending gravity doesn't exist, since it's "just" Newton's theory of gravity.

Contrary to the blatherings of demagogues who profit from misleading the ignorant, calling something a "theory" in the sciences DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS USING THE WORD IN COMMON LANGAUGE.

BroBook said:

Speaking of DNA changing anyone seen "Heroes"

Click to expand...

One episode. I prefer the X Men comics and movies that seem to have inspired the series (indirectly enough that no copyright infringement claims appeared in the news). Nice fiction but not how evolution works. Was there some sort of outside intervention in Heroes? Outside intervention of some sort would count as intelligent design or hostile tinkering however you perceive you does the editing.

jvarnell said:

The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution. This is a just a theory and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted. As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys. You except them or or not.

Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.

Click to expand...

*Bold added by me for emphasis

There is no "JUST A THEORY" in science. This is the point we are trying to get across here. The theory about lockness is NOT a scientific theory it is a theory in the usage most people are familiar with, in science it would be a hypothesis at best. Everything in science is just a theory. Nothing it proven 100% in science, not ever, its the nature of the beast. While it is true that some theories have more evidence than others, and some have flaws, evolution is one that is pretty well understood. Sure Darwin didn't have it 100% correct, we all know that, however it was a starting point. If you think there has been more disproved than accepted then then you simply don't understand Darwin's complete theories.

CuAllaidh said:

... then then you simply don't understand Darwin's complete theories.

Click to expand...

There's also the fact that in science theories advance as they are improved, but they can still be known by the name of their founder or a scientist who brought major revisions.

Classical physics stages go Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Using the expression "Darwinian evolution" does refer to today's formulation. It also has the unfortunate name of the "modern dogma of molecular biology". Watson and Crick merged the Darwin and Mendel branches plus the lock and key system of enzyme catalysis into the modern dogma. Crappy use of the word dogma in my opinion. Worse even than how it got used in Morals and Dogmas.

One of my favorite vloggers said that he ran into his music classes when he was 14 and yelled "I don't believe in your music, it's just a theory!" and ran out again, leaving a puzzled looking class.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App

BryanMaloney said:

Dismissing any science with the words "just a theory" only betrays ignorance of how science works in the real world. This has been hashed over before. The use of "theory" in the sciences is NOT how the word is vulgarly used. What is called "theory" vulgarly would be called a "hypothesis" in the sciences. Likewise, UNLIKE religious dogmas, science does not rely upon 100% infallibility in all minute details of every single thing a person said for one of that person's models to be valid. The way that a silly ENTERTAINMENT channel might use the word "theory" HAS NO BEARING AT ALL on how the term is used in the sciences. After all, we might as well flat-out reject the "germ theory of disease" as "just a theory"--after all the word "theory" appears in its name. Therefore, people can just reject it. Likewise peole can just go around pretending gravity doesn't exist, since it's "just" Newton's theory of gravity.

Contrary to the blatherings of demagogues who profit from misleading the ignorant, calling something a "theory" in the sciences DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS USING THE WORD IN COMMON LANGAUGE.

Click to expand...

So you must say that there were ailens that helped our ansesters because of the "acnent alien theroy". I beleive all theorys have some fact and evedince to that fact but the theory is the part that ties those facts together. I chouse to except the facts that are in all theories but not always the parts a man has thought of to tie them together.