A common misconception in the public debate between evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design/Creationism is to call evolutionary theory “just a theory.” While it is true that it is a theory, the implied meaning is that one should not hold it in any considerable light, but to place it with common theories such as your friend’s theory on whether to drink beer or liquor first, instead of an idea that is peer reviewed, tested by multiple independent methods and considered by some of the brightest minds.
The word “theory” has a considerably different meaning in normal conversation than in a scientific context. When your friend tells you that he or she has a theory about why Britney Spears shaved her head, hopefully the connotation for “theory” is that of a belief or a passing thought and not comparable to what you learn in a quantum mechanics class. This error is exactly the mistake in equating the two. Ken Ham, the person behind the creation museum in Kentucky and the Web site “Answers in Genesis,” often touts the idea that creationism uses the same data. But, by applying a different world view, he comes to the conclusion that all of the animals are created as they are with only minor differences based on “micro evolution.” While Ken Ham’s ideas fail the testability requirement to be science and fly in the face of common sense (Dinosaurs lived alongside man?), he does admit that “theory” in evolutionary theory has a stronger meaning. He does, however, misunderstand the definition by stating on his Web site “it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.”
A hypothesis is very different from a theory. One can get a hypothesis from a theory by determining a prediction and using that as a hypothesis for an experiment. The theory, however, is a complete set of ideas used to explain a series of related phenomena. Evolutionary theory intends to explain that the diversity of species is because of genetic changes and environmental pressures as a selection effect. A hypothesis would be that chimpanzees and humans are related because of the similarities in bone structure, DNA, etc., and there will be a common ancestor which connects the two lineages. Hypotheses are made to test theories and the conclusions determine the validity of a theory, but they are not the same. There are other false equalities made between this “theory as belief” and “theory as science” in the public debate. Certain theories and ideas labeled as religions by people who oppose the beliefs, usually the Big Bang and evolutionary theory, again to try to detract from their importance. It is ironic that this line of thinking is used by people arguing for the superiority of religion over science: Faith has nothing to do with scientific theory while it is often the backbone of religion.
Perhaps there are a few people throwing the paper on the ground and saying, “No that is not true. What about axioms?” It is true that axioms are not proven but considered self-evident and a starting point to base inferences from. So perhaps you will ask “Then why can’t a god be simply an axiom upon which a religion is founded, thereby equating religion and science?” There is one thing that we have that can indirectly test axioms: reality.
Oftentimes, in mathematics and physics we make certain assumptions, which we then bring to their logical conclusions and determine whether the conclusion is reasonable or not. If this leads to absurdity then you have to go back to your assumptions and look at what might have been a false assumption. In reality we can view a world by what we assume to be if it were made by a god and compare that with reality, which would be a test for God or the “actions” of God without having to directly test God.
Thankfully creationists do part of the work by making contrary claims to what we observe, such as separate lineages for species rather than the derived phylogenetic trees from multiple independent scientific fields. This does not disprove any god unless the god is entirely dependent on doing things opposite to what is observed in nature. If one has a theory, which depends on certain axioms, a test against reality will never prove that the axioms are true, but it will bolster one’s confidence in the assumptions. When a theory is found to be contrary to observation, then one has to change the axioms in which the theory is based.
This is where theory and a simple belief are much different. One can hold to certain beliefs his whole life and never test them, but science only survives and is useful if it is tested.
You can keep a belief that makes you feel good or as some aesthetic value and maintain it based on its meaning to you rather than whether it is objectively true. However, in science, if it is false, it isn’t held on to, it crashes and burns. A theory is not something that you believe in or not, but a framework to explain a subset of the universe and its validity is entirely objective.
Religious belief based on faith, theory based on fact
Leave a comment 38 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Intelligent Design Message from the Designers contains a hypothesis which could be describer as Evolution II. Instead of the progression of design evidenced in the theory of evolution, presumed to be nature we have progression of design by advanced science.If this were correct then what in effect scientists have done is to retro engineer over the last 150 years what has taken some 12000 years of progressive evolution of design by advanced scientists.On top of this we have the progression of a human race over an additional 13000 years.The backdrop to this is that there have been many humanities on this ancient planet which have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we can see today.Science fiction?If it is then as one famous person said of the book,; it ranks alongside the most breathtaking of it's kind.'Would make a wonderful theme for a film. Given that our scientists are about to create life artificially(Craig Ventner GENESIS II), is it not time to consider that there may be other more scientifically advanced societies elsewhere?.
Reply to this Top
lot of words, little meaning ben.
There probably are other beings elsewhere...but just too far away to communicate with.
Reply to this Top
Even a law of science could be disproven over time. If the scientific method is applied properly,testing is for the purpose of proving theories and hypotheses wrong, not to look for evidence to support them.
A chimpanzee is 95% similar genetically with a human, mouse 85%, banana 50%. I don't believe a banana is half human. Line them up side by side and I would guess the chimp would have the most similar DNA. Genetic similarities are necessary for a food chain. What is the cause of that effect, common ancestor or common designer? How you answer that will be a result of your philosophical worldview, not your science.
Reply to this Top
Chimps are 98% similar to humans, but thats besides the point.
Simply because something is some % similar in DNA to humans doesn't mean they are that percent human.
Phylogenetic trees are made from multiple branches of science and they agree with each other. It isn't simply about how closely the genes match up. There are also tracers of the genetic changes which are common to two species and to a common ancestor which shows a link between the two, such as retroviruses.
Reply to this Top
I'm guessing you and me are, like, 99.99% the same DNA. You are soooo me!
Top
Brian mentioned the Big Bang. A vacuum fluctuation supposedly caused this. "A vacuum fluctuation took place in a moment of time in a spot no bigger than a dime." A vacuum may be the absence of matter, but it requires the existence of matter. A fluctuation cannot take place without energy, when supposedly none existed. It cannot happen in a moment of time if time doesn't exist yet. A spot no bigger than a dime is still space, when none supposedly existed.
I have a feeling if you leave "nothing" alone long enough, I think I know what will happen. You can believe in that nonsense if you want to, but you shouldn't call it science.
Reply to this Top
Find a scientific, peer reviewed paper that mentioned that. That is not an accepted theory.
Reply to this Top
By the way, Ben, if a scientist creates life in a laboratory, that will be absolute proof no intelligence was necessary, correct?
Microevolution is not doubted by anyone. Dogs produce dogs. Dogs producing non-dogs is the issue. Extreme speciation is often because of gene loss and often results in sterility, not a new "kind." Speciation has limits. Ask people who breed dogs and cats.
Reply to this Top
If dogs didn't give birth to dogs, then evolutionary theory would be false. Evolutionary theory does not say that dogs should give birth to anything other than dogs. But over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, the ancestors of a group of dogs could turn into another species through minor changes which eventually make the DNA not compatable, and breeding can no longer occur between the two species. This is called speciation, and it is the first steps to diversity, and it has been observed.
Reply to this Top
This so called speciation has NEVER been observed, you've crossed the boundary into blatant lies. You said "Observed" which means it has been seen in action, not merely hypothesized from the fossil record. Proof? There is none.
Top
Never observed? There is ample evidence of the domestication of dogs into wolves. And in just the last few hundred years, we have selectively bred many species of dog. Surely you won't argue that a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are the same species. There is solid proof of their common ancestry. What we have done over a century, nature has also done over 1 billion years.
Top
Wolves are still dogs, and can still be bred with Chihuahuas. You cannot call them different species.
Top
"This is called speciation, and it is the first steps to diversity, and it has been observed."
Unfortunately for you, speciation results in a loss of genetic information, not a gain. So to show evolution to be true, you have to show that if you subtract something long enough, it will end up being addition. Animal kinds were created with the potential for massive genetic diversity, which is why we have 150 breeds of dogs recognized by the AKC. This is perfectly compatible with Biblical creation, but not evolution. Every breed LOSES the information required to be another breed. Short hair dogs lose the genes for long hair, etc.
Top
"What we have done over a century, nature has also done over 1 billion years."
Unfounded and arbitrary speculation. I thought science was about observation.
Top
There is good circumstantial evidence of common ancestry. I'll give you that.
Top
If a team of scientists were to create life from scratch, I would say that is proof that the synthesis of life does not require divine intervention / magic. How many micro-evolutions equal one macro-evolution? 'Dogs' were not always 'dogs'; they were artificially selected for breeding by humans from feral wolves thousands of years ago. If you are willing to say that a wolf and a chihuahua are the same 'kind', why not just concede that all animals are the same 'kind'? Or, why not say all life not the same 'kind'?
Reply to this Top
"If a team of scientists were to create life from scratch, I would say that is proof that the synthesis of life does not require divine intervention / magic."
Magic? What it would prove is that a MIND is a requirement for the transmission of information (see Werner Gitt).
Top
Mark's right. In fact, the alleged computer simulations of evolution all have the investigators monkeying around with the initial conditions, etc, infusing information into the system.
Top
The author talks as though macroevolution is a proven fact, when the opposite is true. For someone so up on human intelligence and thought, apply your mind: Monkeys (apes, chimps, whatever) through some long series of processes became more intelligent and able to compete and thus came to become homo sapiens as we are today. But there are still all these animals on the Earth, so some of them clearly didn't have the right conditions for evolution to occur. But it seems naive to think that all the intermediate stages of mans evolution shouldn't have occurred in one place, or even at the same time. So where are the half ape-half man hybrids? They don't exist because man didn't evolve. Man was created by a God who cares about everyone on this Earth, and we are NOT animals. Man didn't evolve a soul, and that is what makes life meaningful.
Reply to this Top
They are extinct. Neanderthals etc. and farther back have been extinct for awhile now.
Species adapt to their environment and change based on these pressures. The main way for a species to diverge is to have geological separation of the species. Different environments on the same species will cause one to adapt differently. Its a rather simple concept.
Reply to this Top
There are no half-ape half-human hybrids because humans are apes. We are apes and animals by every definition of the words. Will you also deny that we are primates and mammals?
Reply to this Top
Use your brain: if man as we now exist evolved over time from less intelligent species, that process should be ongoing until there are no more of the lower species, and they have all evolved. Why aren't these intermediate stages of evolution present when the less intelligent ancestors still exist on the earth?
Top
we wave our magic wand and, like Darwin, claim the fossil record is woefully incomplete, and poof, many of the problems jiving Darwinism with reality disappear!
Top
most worthless topic ever. why does the school paper write about everything but what happens at school? write a story about that
Reply to this Top
On the front page, I would say that there are at least 10 stories about the happenings around campus. There is no reason why every article published in a student paper has to be about the school.
Reply to this Top
Dogs produce different species of dogs, not non-dogs. There is no evidence that has ever happened.
There is nothing that suggests any major difference between Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, Australopithecines, Homo-erectus and modern humans. There is ape-kind and humankind, and the so-called ape-like ancestor is still missing. Humans were created in the likeness of God, animals were not. Our God is not a monkey.
You have accepted that microevolution leads to macroevolution, and there is absolutely no evidence for that. I would suggest looking up the difference between science and scientific naturalism, and learning to tell the difference.
Reply to this Top
Here are many pretty pictures for you to look at about our evolutionary history. No reading required!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Reply to this Top
I guess the question should be asked what exactly is Intelligent Design/Creationism?
What is the difference between Intelligent Design/Creationism and Evolution/Creationism?
Is Mr Roper trying to indicate that if a person believes in Intelligent Design and Creationism that person would be designated as a Intelligent Design/Creationist? We all know there are some Creationists that also believe in Evolution would we refer to them as Evolution/Creationists?
When Someone tells you that Humans and all living things evolved, by a process referred to as macro-evolution, beginning with a first accidently formed cell approx 3.5 billion years ago to where we are today by accidental mutations. This process would of necessity create Millions upon millions of transitional fossils over the last 3 billion years.
When you find out that not one transitional fossil has been found in the many millions of fossils discovered by man (except for a few frauds and a few that were later found to be mistakes in judgement) do we consider Evolutionary theory similar to the Britney Spears shaved her head theory?
We should keep in mind that there is absolutely no scientific proof that evolution has ever in fact occurred. You might consider Evolution more as a religion, without any kind of scientific proof we must accept Evolution on faith alone. Kind of like those who believe in Creationism only without a Bible to back it up.
Reply to this Top
Good points all, perhaps the author should consider more carefully his assertions of what is "known fact":
Microevolution: fact
Macroevolution: theory
God and Creation: faith
Reply to this Top
Macroevolution and microevolution are both evolution. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.
Also, theories = a collection of facts that explain a phenomenon.
Fact: "a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
Scientific Theory: well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"
Top
LMA states that there is no meaningful distinction, which shows his ignorance of the topic as a whole. Microevolution is the changing of a species over time, in order to better compete (natural selection). Such microevolutionary changes as color, structure of beak and other body parts has been observed NUMEROUS times. No one is going to argue that. But no evidence exists to prove that animals without wings ever got them or became a new species entirely. Look up irreducible complexity and come back and talk.
Top
Irreducible complexity? Creationists have yet to give ONE example of something that is 'irreducibly complex'. Not one. Every example the produce is quickly explained away with an evolutionary model. 1% of a wing is better than 0% and 2% is better than 1%... and so on. Seemingly complex biological traits have slowly and incrementally accumulated over time. Thousands of 'microevolutions' added together can be equilvalent to one 'macroevolution' (although I don't like using those terms).
Top
"Creationists have yet to give ONE example of something that is 'irreducibly complex'."
Aviary lung.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds
Top
"Kind of like those who believe in Creationism only without a Bible to back it up."
did you just imply that the Bible 'backs up' Creationism? The bible is incapable of 'backing up' anything as it doesn't display factual evidence about anything. It only claims outright what is true, with nothing to 'back it up'. That's like me sayign that evolution is backed up by the fact that I said it was true.
The problem with the whole transitional fossil issue, is that people seem to think that at some point you're going to find a fossil which is a strange amalgamation of two animals, which demonstrates the process of one animal evolving into another. This is never going to happen, because it doesn't make any sense. You're never going to find an animal which is half way evolved, seemingly "incomplete", which is mutating in a way that is currently useless but will eventually over a few generations have a clear use. It would be like if we started growing stumps on our backs which were utterly useless, growing larger with each generation until eventually, many generations down he line we have fully functioning wings on our backs.
Reply to this Top
I suggest you read Jason Lisle's Ultimate Proof of Creation.
and perhaps a book on Biblical Archaeology
Top
Mr. Roper,
Thanks writing this piece. I'm entirely in agreement with you on the existence of objective truth and the scientific enterprise's exceptional ability to get us closer to that truth. But in fairness, I think your faith vs. fact dichotomy simply does not hold for the more thoughtful among religionists. Your use of the term faith suggests you think it tantamount to religious wishful thinking, wholly aside from the evidence, as in "blind-faith" or a "leap-of-faith". Some religionists consider faith as active trust based on evidence, as in "I trust my physics professor". We both probably agree there is nothing noble about believing something counter to the evidence, but not all religious faith/trust is of this type.
I might add that I think you are also using the term "belief" in a confusing sense. Belief is a mental state regarding the correspondence of a proposition to reality. For example, "The Earth is flat" and "The Earth is round" are both claims about reality, and you can find individuals who believe one or the other. The evidence overwhelmingly points toward the latter, so it's justified to believe the Earth is round. One can believe all sorts of things, some of which correspond to reality and some which don't. We want people to have beliefs that correspond to reality. A scientific theory is just as much a claim meriting belief or unbelief as "the sun will rise tomorrow" or "I had eggs for breakfast this morning".
Reply to this Top
People are careless these days and have made words like "belief" synonymous with "deciding something is true for no good reason", or as you put it, "wishful thinking".
If this is what a person means by belief, we can tune them out since there is no reason to take them seriously. I don't care what someone's unfounded mental state is about anything. Believing something doesn't make it true.
Reply to this Top
There are a lot of images on the Web. How can you know whether an image is original or has been edited by Photoshop? Check it out using <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a>. Specify your image's URL and the site will do analysis for you automatically.
Reply to this Top