Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[Thor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a "designer" must have lent a hand, the findings suggest.
And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

There is no polite way to say this, but its clear that those who doubt Evolution are as stupid as those who deny the Holocaust or deny the world is round.


If Religion keeps pushing doubt against a fact like Evolution, we need to find better ways to explain and show the average citizen of the world that this isn't some 'contraversial' theory, but fact.


Lets let Sir David Attenborough speak on this:


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7U4k522Pg


Anyone who doubts Evolution is as stupid and ignorant as Holocaust deniers and people who doubt gravity.


No more polite disagreement, this kind of anti science has to end, its not OK to doubt truth because you follow some particular belief system based on 2000 yr old books.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

There is no polite way to say this, but its clear that those who doubt Evolution are as stupid as those who deny the Holocaust or deny the world is round.

The Holocaust and the world being round are 2 things that can be verified as fact. You can fly around the world. You could interview people who were involved in some way in the Holocaust.

On the other hand you have the Theory of Evolution. Which is a scientific theory that states that as best as we understand things right now, this what happened during the last x millions of years. As scientists though, we realize our knowledge is not perfect, and there could be something out there just waiting to be discovered that could drastically change the way we view the world.

To claim that human beings have the same level of understanding about something that can be independently verified as fact, such as the world being round to be on the same level of human understanding as evolution is a total incorrect statement.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The Holocaust and the world being round are 2 things that can be verified as fact. You can fly around the world. You could interview people who were involved in some way in the Holocaust.

Certainly thats true, but you however you have Holocaust deniers, including some involved with the Vatican.

People who deny facts and circumvent logic are a threat to all people, religious and non religious.

On the other hand you have the Theory of Evolution. Which is a scientific theory that states that as best as we understand things right now, this what happened during the last x millions of years. As scientists though, we realize our knowledge is not perfect, and there could be something out there just waiting to be discovered that could drastically change the way we view the world.

That's disingenuous, because Evolution is fact, we have many fields of science that agree on this, in fact a lot of modern medicine owe's its success to this fact (theory).

Because laymen people have no clue that Theory in Science is as close to fact as we can get, understanding the Scientific method; they relate the word to current English thinking Theory has little strength. But in Science its obvious we don't doubt the Theory of relativity, the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory, etc...

Its simply when a theory (overwhelmingly fact based Science data) contradicts religion is when they fight back against truth.

If Evolution has some great flaw that would be contradicted, its survived in the last century DNA, Genetics, Advanced Biology and many other advancements which could have thrown doubt into Darwins great idea, but have ALL supported and added to the massive mountain of evidence to the power of this fact of evolution.

To claim that human beings have the same level of understanding about something that can be independently verified as fact, such as the world being round to be on the same level of human understanding as evolution is a total incorrect statement.

That's a terrific nonsense statement right there lol.

[Bagor]

2060 IMO isn't a big enough sample size to represent a population of 61 million.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

2060 IMO isn't a big enough sample size to represent a population of 61 million.

To that statement, here is Richard Dawkin's exchange with Johnathan:

24. Comment #331345 by Richard Dawkins on January 31, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Here's my e-mail exchange with Jonathan Wynne-Jones, in which you can see the context of my 'pig-ignorant' remark. He sent me the raw findings, which I have here extracted and interspersed with my comments, which are in bold.

Only half of the UK population consistently choose evolution over creationism or Intelligent Design, according to a major report published today by Theos, the public theology think-tank.
This is in line with previous surveys, for example the Eurobarometer Survey of 2005, and the MORI poll commissioned by the BBC in 2006.
Nick Spencer, the director of studies at Theos and co-author of the report, said:
“The problem is that evolution has become mixed up with all sorts of ideas – like the belief that there is no God, or no purpose or no absolute morality in life – which people find very difficult to accept."
This may well be true, but it is illogical. Whether evolution is true or not should depend on the strength of the evidence, NOT on whether people find palatable something else that they perceive to be "mixed up" with it.
“The tragedy is that this was never Darwin’s position. Three years before he died he wrote ‘it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.’
“And in one of the last letters he ever wrote, to the philosopher William Graham, he said, ‘my inward conviction [is] that the Universe is not the result of chance'."
Obviously life, which was Darwin's own subject is not the result of chance. Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance. The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn't think that, because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection.
“Sadly, however, Darwin’s own beliefs have been ignored or misused by some of his modern disciples. Today too many people associate Darwin and his theory with a bleak and brutal vision of life, which is why so many people are sceptical about evolution."
Once again, it is totally illogical to say, "X is bleak and brutal and I don't like X, therefore X must be false". The truth is the truth, whether you find it bleak and brutal or not.
Paul Woolley, the director of Theos, said:
“Darwin was a truly great natural scientist – not a theologian or a philosopher. Both his theory and the tragic loss of his favourite daughter played a role in his own loss of Christian faith. But, by his own admission, even in his wildest fluctuations he was never an atheist."
Darwin described himself as an agnostic. His son Francis recounts an interesting conversation that Darwin had, toward the end of his life, with the atheists Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner. Darwin asked them why they called themselves atheists. They replied that they neither denied nor affirmed God. Then Darwin gave what his son Francis described as a 'thoughtful response', concluding, "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." When Aveling replied that 'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive, Darwin "smiled and responded, 'Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?"
“Unfortunately, he is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause. The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."
For the third time, this is illogical. The evidence for evolution should be the sole criterion, not whether it is associated with something unpalatable. Unpalatability is irrelevant to truth.

Wynne-Jones replied, asking if he could phone me, but I preferred e-mail:

Richard, thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. would it be possible to ask you a couple of quick questions over the phone? Mainly, what do you make of such a large number of people being open to creationism . . . The figures are not so bad as the comparable figures from the USA or from Turkey (and presumably other Islamic countries) . . . and what do you put this down to?
Well, probably mostly ignorance. To put it into perspective, the Eurobarometer survey of 2005 found that 19% of the population of Britain think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun. Nobody could say that this is due to wicked atheists scaring them with bleak and barren philosophy! If you think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun, you are just plain pig-ignorant. Evidently 19% of the British population are sufficiently ignorant to believe that. The same survey found that 28% of British people believe 'the earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs'. With that level of ignorance of science generally, it is hardly surprising if a comparable number believe in creationism.

That was the end of our exchange. You'll notice that my phrase 'pig ignorant' referred to the 19% of people in Britain who think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun. My intention was to rebut the charge that 'aggressive atheism' had driven people into the arms of the creationists, and I did so by pointing out that there is also widespread ignorance about other scientific matters.

Richard

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

Because laymen people have no clue that Theory in Science is as close to fact as we have gotten, understanding the Scientific method; they relate the word to current English thinking Theory has little strength. But in Science we obvious don't doubt the Theory of relativity, the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory, etc...

Fixed for you.

As you yourself stated, a theory is close to fact, which means it isn't fact.

Originally Posted by Thor

That's a terrific nonsense statement right there lol.

Really it is not. On one hand you have something that is a fact and on the other hand you have something that is close to a fact. Are these claims made with the same amount of scientific certainty?

There is a reason why science uses terms like this. It is because they accurately describe the level of knowledge the scientific community has amassed about the subject. By blurring the lines, you are making a false argument, even if your position about the subject is well backed up by evidence.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Fixed for you.

As you yourself stated, a theory is close to fact, which means it isn't fact.

So would you suggest the Theory of Gravity is under the same shaky foundation as Evolution?

[Daradon]

^^^ I've always wondered about that. Isn't it the Law of Gravity?

What is the difference between a theory and law?

Isn't it part of Newtons Law of Motion (or something like that?)

[Daradon]

I mean there is the first law of thermodynamics and such like that.

I'm pretty sure gravity fits under a law, if it's not a rule in of it's self. That it's not just classified as a theory.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ I've always wondered about that. Isn't it the Law of Gravity?

What is the difference between a theory and law?

Isn't it part of Newtons Law of Motion (or something like that?)

Like most great Scientists spend a lot of effort/time explaining, laymen people understand the word "theory" in terms of their everyday language, and in Science the word "theory" has a much different definition.

In your question, the answer is Atomic Theory is called just that, the Theory of Gravity is called just that, the only example I can think of off hand is the law of Thermal dynamics which is more about mathematics than anything.

The Scientific Method holds "Theory of..." as the top of the ladder, because in Science nothing is absolute, we can always challenge and argue against anything. However to achieve status of "theory of...." you have a massive collection of testable evidence, peer review, and rigorous use of the Scientific method to achieve that statement.

If you ask the Evolutionary biologists (religious included) they would equate Evolution with the theory of Gravity or any other never doubted Science theory. Because the evidence and peer reviewed support is immense and overwhelming, and in fact since the original Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" which is over 100 years old, we've only BUILT ON THAT FOUNDATION when we look at other non biological sciences from that age this about the only one which not only stands up today, but has built up a HUGE support base of evidence.

Its safe to say much of modern medicine today is built on the understanding of evolution, if you find any and all Virologists today there would be zero of them that deny Evolution because they see it plainly and clearly in their work in understanding and fighting viral disease and outbreaks.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

So would you suggest the Theory of Gravity is under the same shaky foundation as Evolution?

I assume you have noticed that I have not attacked your position on evolution, but the inaccurate scientific language you used while claiming everyone who opposed your view to be stupid, because your view was fact.

If I had to draw a parallel to your position, I think the best one is in the middle ages when the Church didn't want something to be questioned, they would declare their views as fact, and denounce anyone who thought otherwise. This method served to suppress scientific development for many hundreds of years.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

Like most great Scientists spend a lot of effort/time explaining, laymen people understand the word "theory" in terms of their everyday language, and in Science the word "theory" has a much different definition.

You keep using this term 'laymen' like everyone else reading this thread doesn't understand what you are saying. As I have stated, I know what a scientific theory is, do you understand what a scientific fact is?

I will give you a hint, they are not as interchangeable as you are making them out to be.

[jjbouma]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ I've always wondered about that. Isn't it the Law of Gravity?

What is the difference between a theory and law?

Isn't it part of Newtons Law of Motion (or something like that?)

Yes, it is the Law of Gravity. The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be proven to be 100% true either through mathematical proofs or experimentation, while theories cannot.

In regards to evolutional theory vs. law, the law of evolution refers to that there are observed changes to organisms over time. The theory of evolution, or Darwin's modern evolutionary synthesis, is the current scientific explanation as to how this occurs, but it cannot be proved 100% to be true and therefore is not a law.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Thor

Like most great Scientists spend a lot of effort/time explaining, laymen people understand the word "theory" in terms of their everyday language, and in Science the word "theory" has a much different definition.

In your question, the answer is Atomic Theory is called just that, the Theory of Gravity is called just that, the only example I can think of off hand is the law of Thermal dynamics which is more about mathematics than anything.

The Scientific Method holds "Theory of..." as the top of the ladder, because in Science nothing is absolute, we can always challenge and argue against anything. However to achieve status of "theory of...." you have a massive collection of testable evidence, peer review, and rigorous use of the Scientific method to achieve that statement.

If you ask the Evolutionary biologists (religious included) they would equate Evolution with the theory of Gravity or any other never doubted Science theory. Because the evidence and peer reviewed support is immense and overwhelming, and in fact since the original Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" which is over 100 years old, we've only BUILT ON THAT FOUNDATION when we look at other non biological sciences from that age this about the only one which not only stands up today, but has built up a HUGE support base of evidence.

Its safe to say much of modern medicine today is built on the understanding of evolution, if you find any and all Virologists today there would be zero of them that deny Evolution because they see it plainly and clearly in their work in understanding and fighting viral disease and outbreaks.

Ok, then what makes something a 'law'? Is that when their are multiple parts to a theory? Like first and second law of thermodynamics?

Kinda like bullet points?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I assume you have noticed that I have not attacked your position on evolution, but the inaccurate scientific language you used while claiming everyone who opposed your view to be stupid, because your view was fact.

If I had to draw a parallel to your position, I think the best one is in the middle ages when the Church didn't want something to be questioned, they would declare their views as fact, and denounce anyone who thought otherwise. This method served to suppress scientific development for many hundreds of years.

But the Church just made such statements and you couldn't challenge them. If anyone doubts Evolution, or Germ Theory, or the Theory of Gravity can learn and prove/disprove these scientific ideals on their own.

Science as you know, obviously, anyone can learn and challenge. Whether it be Newtonian Physics or Germ Theory, you can learn and test the result able evidence to decide and argue for yourself.

That's the strength of Science, you cannot push any idea if it doesn't stand the test of your peers, and those peers come from ALL the world, ALL creeds, ALL beliefs, and HAS to stand up to the scientific method.

So my statement wouldn't at all be controversial IF I said the Theory of Gravity was fact in modern English.

However its only Evolution that receives this fervent debate from the Religious in the world, if you look at Islam for example, the overwhelming belief is creationism, even in the face of MASSIVE evidence against it.

My Science 'language' might be aggressive, but you'll be hard pressed to find any and all Biologists in this world (besides the Discovery Institute) who would suggest that Evolution isn't as close to fact as you can achieve in Science without the absolute evidence that Mathematics can give you (IE Thermal Dynamics, Absolute Zero.)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ok, then what makes something a 'law'? Is that when their are multiple parts to a theory? Like first and second law of thermodynamics?

Kinda like bullet points?

I know this is only wiki, which is akin to reading off the wall of the bathroom but it is late.

Laws of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

My Science 'language' might be wrong

Fixed for you again.

I am going to bed, have a good early morning.

Has been fun.

[Daradon]

Ok, so then I was right, gravity is within Newtons Laws of Motion.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Fixed for you again.

I am going to bed, have a good early morning.

Has been fun.

This is what is most frustrating, I know you don't believe Evolution isn't true or something we should doubt.

Yet here you are arguing small points, and your on the side of truth.

Its sad, when you have such a challenge for Science worldwide to educate and enlighten the world, you spend this time debating small things.

Sleep well, it was fun.

[Thor]

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation

Any understanding we have is always and should always be up for debate, the strength of an idea, theory or fact is that its up for debate and challenge based on evidence and the scientific method.

A great example is Quantum Theory, which turns logic upside down and gives us pause in how we not only approach science but in how we understand it.

But to finish this off before I goto bed, my earlier point stands. Evolution has a MOUNTAIN of evidence and support.

To suggest evolution is false, requires more than just 'faith in a holy book' it requires counter argument and counter proof. All of which has not presented itself and something that Intelligent design fails massively at attempting.

So to say, as many Evolutionary biologists to average non science individuals that this Theory is as close to fact as you can get, its an understatement.

I've already explained beyond mathematical facts we can test and not debate (btw there are Mathematicians that debate even that point), that Biology without Evolution and the massive evidence supporting it is the foundation of all medicine and understanding of the biosphere.

Its amazing how this thread went from people doubting evolution to nit picking terms.

But its late, and the Canucks lost.