[_ Old Earth _] A non-Creationists problem with Darwin's hypothesis

[brother Paul]

 

[Barbarian]

Another creationist unable to distinguish between hypothesis and theory. Anyone want to tell us which of the beliefs expressed therein are most convincing?

 

[brother Paul]

All of it being quite true make a reasonable case. Theory comes from the Greek word "Theoria" and this word ACTUALLY means contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, a spectacle. From from the root "thea", a view! Later it came to include the mechanics or rules of a process like in the term "Music Theory". Where it is a set of principles and rules that produce a certain result.

A Hypothesis is a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation (like Darwin's hypothesis of evolution as opposed to other views of the same evidence).

A "scientific theory" on the other hand has become to be defined as a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Therefore use of the word has more than one application...also modern Evolutionary understanding is different from Darwin's hypothesis which has never been observed and no "experiment" has confirmed.

 

[Barbarian]

All of it being quite true make a reasonable case. Theory comes from the Greek word "Theoria" and this word ACTUALLY means contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, a spectacle.

In science, it means an idea that has been tested and is suuported by evidence to the degree that it is unreasonable to deny it.

A Hypothesis is a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

In science, it's an explanation, based on previous knowledge, about some physical phenomenon. When the predictions of the hypothesis are repeatedly confirmed, it is then a theory.

(like Darwin's hypothesis of evolution as opposed to other views of the same evidence).

At the time he wrote the book, it was already a theory. In the following years, evidence continued to confirm his predictions.

A "scientific theory" on the

A scientific theory like Dawinism is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Therefore use of the word has more than one application...

Not in science. In law, though, it means something like a guess yet to be confirmed.

also modern Evolutionary understanding is different from Darwin's hypothesis

Theory. Among the predictions of evolutionary theory from Darwin's time are:

1. There should be numerous transitionals in the fossil record.
2. Absolute boundaries between taxa should be very difficult or impossible to define.
3. Humans evolved in Africa.
4. There must have been fish with functional legs.
5. Common descent
6. Bird descent from dinosaurs

And so on.

which has never been observed and no "experiment" has confirmed.

Which of Darwin's four points do you think have not been verified?

 

[OzSpen]

In science, it means an idea that has been tested and is suuported by evidence to the degree that it is unreasonable to deny it.

In science, it's an explanation, based on previous knowledge, about some physical phenomenon. When the predictions of the hypothesis are repeatedly confirmed, it is then a theory.

At the time he wrote the book, it was already a theory. In the following years, evidence continued to confirm his predictions.

A "scientific theory" on the

A scientific theory like Dawinism is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Not in science. In law, though, it means something like a guess yet to be confirmed.

Theory. Among the predictions of evolutionary theory from Darwin's time are:

1. There should be numerous transitionals in the fossil record.
2. Absolute boundaries between taxa should be very difficult or impossible to define.
3. Humans evolved in Africa.
4. There must have been fish with functional legs.
5. Common descent
6. Bird descent from dinosaurs

And so on.

Which of Darwin's four points do you think have not been verified?

You are using science too generically. I have recently completed a research degree in historical science that does not comply with your restricted definition. See this article that explains further: http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2...imental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

The paper isn't about the nature of theories but about scientific method. And since Bacon, there has been a difference between experimental and descriptive science. Science is primarily, but not exclusively inductive. Theories aren't different as a result of the particular methodologies used to gather the evidence that supports them.

That remains the same. The paper you cited recognizes this fact, noting that falsification, the key objective of inductive science, is the same for historical science as for experimental science.

From the abstract of the cited paper:
As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.

Creationists would find this objectionable, but who else?

 

[OzSpen]

From the abstract of the cited paper:
As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.

Creationists would find this objectionable, but who else?

It was you who stated above, 'A scientific theory like Dawinism is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment'.

Wouldn't you find this statement objectionable about 'historical science' since it was you who explained 'a scientific theory' as being an 'explanation of some aspect of the natural world'?

I put it to you that a scientific theory can explain some aspect of the historical world (i.e. history), sociological world (sociology), psychological world (psychology), etc. I was attempting to address your very narrow understanding of a scientific theory that had to be related to some aspect of the natural world.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

It was you who stated above, 'A scientific theory like Dawinism is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment'.

Wouldn't you find this statement objectionable about 'historical science' since it was you who explained 'a scientific theory' as being an 'explanation of some aspect of the natural world'?

I can't see why.

I put it to you that a scientific theory can explain some aspect of the historical world (i.e. history), sociological world (sociology), psychological world (psychology), etc.

History seems to not be a science, although people from Marx onward have attempted to make it so. Perhaps the narrative will have to be displaced by methodology. Where archaeology and sociology and forensics are employed in science, it is scientific. Sociology certainly is a science, since on can formulate hypotheses and test them. Psychology, as it begins to address behavior in terms of neurology, is certainly a science. Would you consider math to be a science?

I was attempting to address your very narrow understanding of a scientific theory that had to be related to some aspect of the natural world.

At this point, science is unable to say anything about the supernatural.

 

[OzSpen]

I can't see why.

History seems to not be a science, although people from Marx onward have attempted to make it so. Perhaps the narrative will have to be displaced by methodology. Where archaeology and sociology and forensics are employed in science, it is scientific. Sociology certainly is a science, since on can formulate hypotheses and test them. Psychology, as it begins to address behavior in terms of neurology, is certainly a science. Would you consider math to be a science?

At this point, science is unable to say anything about the supernatural.

I happen to have a PhD in an area of investigation into the historical Jesus and it involved use of development of hypotheses from the historical evidence and testing them for verification or falsification. It involved the discipline of historical science.

Your view that 'history seems to not be a science' is not accurate and the idea that the narrative will have to be displaced by methodology is not the situation. The narratives of history can have the hypothesis, verification-falsification methodology applied to them. That's what I did in my 488 page dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system).

Your view that 'science is unable to say anything about the supernatural' seems to be speaking about one kind of science but eliminating what historical science verifies or falsifies about the supernatural.

What does historical science determine about the supernatural in the NT Gospels?

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

Most historians would object to history being described as a science. Shelby Foote, for example, regards it as an art, not a science. While there are generalizations on can make about history, such as Trevor-Roper's observation that a people subjugated by another will often use religion to maintain an identity or that lower classes will tend to support a strong central government, they don't amount to theories. "Scientia" might be a more sensible term for the sort of discipline history is.

 

[OzSpen]

Most historians would object to history being described as a science. Shelby Foote, for example, regards it as an art, not a science. While there are generalizations on can make about history, such as Trevor-Roper's observation that a people subjugated by another will often use religion to maintain an identity or that lower classes will tend to support a strong central government, they don't amount to theories. "Scientia" might be a more sensible term for the sort of discipline history is.

Historian (he taught history at Macquarie University, Sydney NSW, Australia) and Christian exegete and Christian historian, Dr Paul Barnett, disagrees. This is articulated in his publication, Jesus and the Logic of History (1997. Leicester, England: Apollos, an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press).

Sir Isaiah Berlin's article, 'The Concept of Scientific History', raises issues with which you would probably disagree. I don't. The bibliographic details are HERE.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

So, even historians can't come to an agreement on the question. There's a good reason for that. Not every historian envies science, or even wants to make history into a science.

I found this intriguing idea in the cited article:
Nevertheless it remains surprising that philosophers pay more attention to the logic of such natural sciences as mathematics and physics, which comparatively few of them know well at first hand...

Biologists, at least when I was an undergraduate, were expected to be familiar with philosophy, and the great physicists seem to have generally been pretty decent philosophers. Many great philosophers were capable scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

 

[Terry Thone]

In science, it means an idea that has been tested and is suuported by evidence to the degree that it is unreasonable to deny it.

Unreasonable to deny according to whom? You theorize that chickens evolved from frogs(choose whatever animal you want). You check the fossil record and wallah there's chickens and frogs. Evolution proven. No one dares to question the theory as you are denying a theory which makes you unreasonable to the group that postulated the theory.


QUOTE="Barbarian, post: 1154702, member: 917"]At the time he wrote the book, it was already a theory. In the following years, evidence continued to confirm his predictions. /QUOTE]
Once again the word evidence is used loosely. See previous confirmation of proof of evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Unreasonable to deny according to whom?

Usually, a statisticlly 95% confidence.

You theorize that chickens evolved from frogs(choose whatever animal you want).

Sorry, that's completely incompatible with evolutionary theory. You'd never see that kind of a jump from one step to the next. We know the species from which chickens evolved, BTW. Asian jungle fowl.

You check the fossil record and wallah there's chickens and frogs. Evolution proven.

No, that's wrong, too. We look for homologous transitional forms. While so far, there's always been a transitional in the right place, what's even more convincing, is that there are never any where they shouldn't be. No mammals with feathers. No whales with gills. Always connected genetically, which we know is a way to find common descent.

No one dares to question the theory

Happens all the time. Darwin wasn't omniscient; he made some errors, which were challenged, and the theory changed thereby. The rewards are always greatest for the scientist who manages to take down a theory and put better one in its place.

QUOTE="Barbarian, post: 1154702, member: 917"]At the time he wrote the book, it was already a theory. In the following years, evidence continued to confirm his predictions. /QUOTE]

Once again the word evidence is used loosely.

Properly speaking, it's physical data that tell us whether or not a hypothesis is correct. You see, all hypotheses must be testable. When Darwin first suspected evolution, he thought of some ways that he could test that hypothesis. And it turned out that those tests confirmed his prediction. In years since, genetics, fossil data, molecular biology, and observed speciation have confirmed the theory.

 

[Terry Thone]

chickens and frogs are tongue and cheek. You still didn't answer the ? of 95% for whom?
Edited
People checking out social skills of primates is not physical evidence its subjective observation.

 

[Barbarian]

chickens and frogs are tongue and cheek

Wouldn't matter. The idea itself is a misconception about what evolution says.

You still didn't answer the ? of 95% for whom?

I did, but perhaps you didn't get what I was saying. The confidence in results is calculated statistically. When the statistical confidence is at the 95th percentile (sometimes 90th has been used) it is considered to be sufficient to conclude that the results are correct.

You keep side stepping the contradictions

So far, none have been documented. Would you like to show us one of those?

and spewing out scientific rhetoric.

See above. Even animal behavior can be quanitized, analyzed, and valid inferences can be drawn from them.

People checking out social skills of primates is not physical evidence

If you think so, you don't know much about ethology. Learn about it here:

Mathematics of Animal Behavior
http://www.ams.org/staff/jackson/fea-henson.pdf

its subjective observation.

Actually, behavior is easier to objectively measure than many other things. Read and learn.

 

[brother Paul]

You still didn't answer the ? of 95% for whom?
I did, but perhaps you didn't get what I was saying. The confidence in results is calculated statistically. When the statistical confidence is at the 95th percentile (sometimes 90th has been used) it is considered to be sufficient to conclude that the results are correct.

Ans you previously fought against the use of statistics and probabilities....my oh my...one of those simultaneous contradictions or only useful and reliable when these appear to support your view?


I know I know...now is when you go into how I do not understand something....

 

[Terry Thone]

Wouldn't matter. The idea itself is a misconception about what evolution says.

Evolutionist can't even agree on what evolution is. You define the four tenets and then it's off to the races.

Abiogenisis the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. Now the lovely scientific jargon begins. Abiogenisis has nothing to do with evolution. We only study the physical and natural world and never the two will meet.
Remainder of post Edited

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionist can't even agree on what evolution is.

Change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).

You define the four tenets and then it's off to the races.

Abiogenisis the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

No. You've confused abiogensis which says life was brought forth by the Earth, with spontaneous generation, which says complex metazoans can arise from decaying organic material. God tells us that abiogenesis is a fact. Spontaneous generation has been refuted.

Now the lovely scientific jargon begins. Abiogenisis has nothing to do with evolution.

Correct. As you know, Darwin's theory only describes how life changes; it does not say how life began. Darwin only speculated that God just created the first living things.

Edited

 

[Terry Thone]

No. You've confused abiogensis which says life was brought forth by the Earth, with spontaneous generation, which says complex metazoans can arise from decaying organic material. God tells us that abiogenesis is a fact. Spontaneous generation has been refuted.

It's ironic how you've proved me correct about spewing jargon to refute a valid point of logic. The definition of abiogenisis that you are refuting is directly quoted from dictionary.com.
Edited