[_ Old Earth _] A theory should not be held as fact

[ardchoille]

Long ago mankind used all available information to conclude that the earth was flat. For some time after that conclusion people believed it because there was no proof to the contrary. It was, in the mind of mankind, a fact. People talked about it and taught this "fact" to their children.

Today we know that this "fact" was in error.

Mankind is fallible. And, as long as mankind is fallible, nothing mankind can produce will ever be infallible - imperfection to the nth degree will never produce perfection. Human history has shown that a fact will remain a fact until there is proof to the contrary.

I don't have all of the answers yet and I don't believe I ever will. However, I find it difficult to believe that mankind can come up with a theory, believe it as if it were a fact, and think everything is said and done. Have we learned nothing from history? Yes, we are more knowledgeable today than mankind was a thousand years ago, but we still don't have all of the answers and a theory should not be considered a fact until we do.

What would happen if, say next week, someone finds proof that turns a fact into a myth? It has happened many times before and we would be lying to ourselves if we were to think it won't happen again.

Just a thought

 

[Pizzaguy]

What would happen if, say next week, someone finds proof that turns a fact into a myth?

Nothing.

When, in the Renaissance, the earth was plucked from it's imagined place at the center of the universe, and placed in orbit around the sun - nothing much happened.
The church put Galileo under house arrest for a time, (after bending over backwards trying not to) - but that was about it.

The struggle to provide for one's self takes, and has always taken, most of the average person's energy. Remove or seriously impede the average person from providing for themselves and you WILL see a revolution. (That is the primary reason for welfare - to keep the people satisfied.)

 

[ardchoille]

Nothing.

I think it would have a more profund impact in modern times. Suppose, if you will, that we find proof that evolution is not what we thought it was. Or, that it happened and the bible records it but we have yet to understand the wording that was used for the record. We shouldn't be so deluded as to think that this won't happen. It happened to the folks who thought the earth was the center of the universe. It happened to the folks who thought the earth was flat.

I think there is much truth in the quote "true wisdom lies in knowing that we know nothing".

 

[Pizzaguy]

1) I think it would have a more profund impact in modern times.

2) I think there is much truth in the quote "true wisdom lies in knowing that we know nothing".

1) I don't. The revelation that you propose about evolution would not matter. Those who have accepted evolution would react much like: "See? Told ya so."
Those who don't like what they are hearing (I'd be one of them, I guess), would simply say, "I trust God's word - science must still be wrong."

2) I don't like that quote. I offer Issac Newton's thought from the later years in his life, "I know not how the world will view me, or what will be taught about me. For myself, I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Our knowledge is LIMITED, but it is not zero.

 

[ardchoille]

1) I think it would have a more profund impact in modern times.

2) I think there is much truth in the quote "true wisdom lies in knowing that we know nothing".

1) I don't. The revelation that you propose about evolution would not matter. Those who have accepted evolution would react much like: "See? Told ya so."
Those who don't like what they are hearing (I'd be one of them, I guess), would simply say, "I trust God's word - science must still be wrong."

2) I don't like that quote. I offer Issac Newton's thought from the later years in his life, "I know not how the world will view me, or what will be taught about me. For myself, I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Our knowledge is LIMITED, but it is not zero.

Well, I take the quote I posted, not as meaning our knowledge is empty, rather someone who knows nothing seeks to know something. The opposite of a closed mind, if you will. I guess it comes down to the theory that something can have different meanings to different people.

 

[Vaccine]

I think there is much truth in the quote "true wisdom lies in knowing that we know nothing".

I agree with that.

I don't cling to hard to any of my beliefs on science. New discoveries, new ideas, new insights happen from time to time.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I guess it comes down to the theory that something can have different meanings to different people.

Yea, like "morals", "values" and "ethics".

 

[Barbarian]

Long ago mankind used all available information to conclude that the earth was flat.

How long ago, do you think that was?

For some time after that conclusion people believed it because there was no proof to the contrary.

Most people, as soon as they began sailing out of sight of land, had it figured out. Can you see why?

It was, in the mind of mankind, a fact. People talked about it and taught this "fact" to their children.

Can you show us that?

Today we know that this "fact" was in error.

No later than 500 BC we knew it was round. By 300 BC, at least one person had calculated its circumference with surprising accuracy.

Mankind is fallible. And, as long as mankind is fallible, nothing mankind can produce will ever be infallible

Including religious beliefs. If it seem as though nature and God are opposed, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them.

However, I find it difficult to believe that mankind can come up with a theory, believe it as if it were a fact, and think everything is said and done.

Science has shown the folly of that. While we know that evolution, or atoms, or a round Earth are facts, we certainly don't know everything there is to know about any of them. So our understanding evolves.

What would happen if, say next week, someone finds proof that turns a fact into a myth?

Nothing in science. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

But Darwinian theory has been modified several times to correct errors. It will no doubt happen again. Theories become closer and closer to the truth as they are modified by new evidence.

 

[ardchoille]

Theories become closer and closer to the truth as they are modified by new evidence.

But they're still just theories, rather than fact. correct? Does that not agree with my point that theories should not be held as fact?

 

[Barbarian]

But they're still just theories, rather than fact.

They are facts in the sense that it's a fact that the sun will be shining tomorrow.

Does that not agree with my point that theories should not be held as fact?

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. By uttering statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," people reveal that they don't really know the meanings of the words they are using, but instead are merely parroting the talking points of creationist propagandists.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)

So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

 

[ardchoille]

But they're still just theories, rather than fact.

They are facts in the sense that it's a fact that the sun will be shining tomorrow.

Does that not agree with my point that theories should not be held as fact?

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. By uttering statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," people reveal that they don't really know the meanings of the words they are using, but instead are merely parroting the talking points of creationist propagandists.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)

So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

Since mankind is fallible, that which mankind creates can never be infallible.. this includes theories. Wouldn't it benefit a person to devote their resources into that which is infallible?

 

[Claudya]

Since mankind is fallible, that which mankind creates can never be infallible.. this includes theories. Wouldn't it benefit a person to devote their resources into that which is infallible?

If by that you mean we should rather focus on God and our faith rather than science and human knowledge because the latter is fallible but God isn't, then you must know that by your own argumentation our religious worldviews are just as fallible as our scientific theories are according to your argumentation. What else is religion but human knowledge about the supernatural?
Maybe you are the only human that exists and all your experience is an illusion of your mind? Or some input given to you by a computer program in order to keep your mind busy? Then the whole christian faith would just be something your mind has made up.

 

[Barbarian]

Since mankind is fallible, that which mankind creates can never be infallible.. this includes theories.

And theologies. The difference is, science is continuously improving theories by altering them to fit the evidence. So chemistry and evolution are much better understood today than a hundred years ago, and in a hundred years, they will be better understood today. Theologically, I'm not so sure we've progressed.

Wouldn't it benefit a person to devote their resources into that which is infallible?

Theology isn't infallible. We can be just as wrong about God as we can be about nature.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Does that not agree with my point that theories should not be held as fact?

I kind of think that much of theology would fit your definition of "theory".

But, both you and others posting in this thread give me great food for thought.

 

[ardchoille]

Since mankind is fallible, that which mankind creates can never be infallible.. this includes theories.

And theologies. The difference is, science is continuously improving theories by altering them to fit the evidence. So chemistry and evolution are much better understood today than a hundred years ago, and in a hundred years, they will be better understood today. Theologically, I'm not so sure we've progressed.

Wouldn't it benefit a person to devote their resources into that which is infallible?

Theology isn't infallible. We can be just as wrong about God as we can be about nature.

No argument there. However, I cannot justify devoting resources to something that will forever be changing unless that something provides food, shelter and clothing. God does, after all, expect me to take care of my body.

Does that not agree with my point that theories should not be held as fact?

I kind of think that much of theology would fit your definition of "theory".

But, both you and others posting in this thread give me great food for thought.

Again, no argument there.. though I'm unsure how theology entered the conversation.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You can't discuss ANYTHING here without theology entering the discussion - even when talking about my CAR, theology comes up.

(That's why I put that line in my signature about being in a cult!)

 

[ardchoille]

You can't discuss ANYTHING here without theology entering the discussion - even when talking about my CAR, theology comes up.

(That's why I put that line in my signature about being in a cult!)

Ah, fair point. This is, after all, Christian Forums.

I wondered what your sig meant, thanks for the explanation

 

[Barbarian]

Science tells us how all of that happens. And of course, things like breeding better plants, and antibiotic protocols depend on evolutionary theory. The point is that very little we do, works better than science for helping us get along in this world.

 

[Pizzaguy]

The point is that very little we do, works better than science for helping us get along in this world.

So you endorse vaccination and going to the doctor (as do I).

So, does that mean you endorse GM foods?

 

[Barbarian]

So you endorse vaccination and going to the doctor (as do I).

Yep.

So, does that mean you endorse GM foods?

Didn't know General Motors grew food. Given their recent products, I'd say I might wait a bit before buying any of it.

Oh, you mean "genetically modified." Yeah, that seems to be pretty solid. The first genetically modified plants were about 5,000 BC. A mutation that kept wheat from shattering, so that you could wait to harvest it, and then thresh out the grains instead of having them fall as they ripened, like wild rice. Lean, tough cattle were, over thousands of years, genetically modified to be peaceable, tender, and larger.

And so on.

Mostly good.