27th September 2005, 2:32 PM
Yes, ABF is correct that the word "theory" means something different in science than it does in, say, a police investigation. Theory in science does mean that it cannot be proved, but is generally accepted by those in authority. Even though we all talk about Einstein and e=mc^2 and pretend we know what it means (I have a basic knowledge of what it means but don't really understand the math myself), it is still the "Theory of Relativity". Not often do people question this.
That said, it is foolish to call evolution a fact. You cannot prove it. There is a lot of "evidence" that was fabricated by "scientists" who wanted to make a discovery that proved a pet theory so they could be famous. No matter how hard you want to believe it, most scientists are emotionless, detatched people who simply seek the truth. They are human beings and therefore see things through their own lenses, and sometimes those lenses are tainted.
Science uses what is called the scientifric method in order to validate hypothesis:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiment
Now you will notice that evolution has the first 2 step scovered, but completely missed the next 2. Those are actually more important, because they involve proving your ideas, rather than simply observing (which can be tainted) and guessing (which is, obviosuly, a guess). I have yet to hear about anyone using their knowledge of evolution to predict new changes to species or to perform experiements in order to gain actual evidence that backs evolution. However there is tons and tons of evidence, such as "We found such and such a fossil in such and such a place, and we know the rock there is this many years old, therefore..." or "This human skeleton has a bigger skull therefore it is evidence of the missing link..." That is all observation and speculation. But nobody ever mentions that, do they?
I have seen profs in my CS classes argue over things like whether one algorithm is better than another simply because they prefer it. They both have the performance runs and mathematical formulas to "prove" their point, and all that stuff is accurate. But they are biased about such meaningles things like this, and refuse to see sense because they mixed their pride up in this. Any of you who have been to a university know how arrogant most of those professors are. It doesn't matter if later someone can convincingly prove one way is better, they will ignore it or hide it or make up stuff to fool the masses who don't know better. The one thing academia will NEVER do is admit they were wrong. It is impossible. So what do you think happens when a subject mixes the pride of the intellectuals with religion and politics? They won't budge and will fight anyone who even suggests they are wrong.
Notice that it only happens to pro-Christian ideas? They are all about teaching diversity of sexual preferences, comparing other religions to Christianity, and more - they'll even experiement with new way to teach things like math. Haven't you seen through it yet? Diversity is simply a buzzword that is used to push what certain people want. They don't really care about treating all people equally or anything like that? It's just a convenient way to sneak an agenda. If they truly cared about presenting all ideas equally, than they would be all over teaching intelligent design so students could compare and decide the truth for themselves. But now that they have their way, they will do whatever it takes to fight opposing ideas because it's easier to force an idea down someone throat when they are clueless to alternatives than actually debating the merits of your ideas.
That said, it is foolish to call evolution a fact. You cannot prove it. There is a lot of "evidence" that was fabricated by "scientists" who wanted to make a discovery that proved a pet theory so they could be famous. No matter how hard you want to believe it, most scientists are emotionless, detatched people who simply seek the truth. They are human beings and therefore see things through their own lenses, and sometimes those lenses are tainted.
Science uses what is called the scientifric method in order to validate hypothesis:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiment
Now you will notice that evolution has the first 2 step scovered, but completely missed the next 2. Those are actually more important, because they involve proving your ideas, rather than simply observing (which can be tainted) and guessing (which is, obviosuly, a guess). I have yet to hear about anyone using their knowledge of evolution to predict new changes to species or to perform experiements in order to gain actual evidence that backs evolution. However there is tons and tons of evidence, such as "We found such and such a fossil in such and such a place, and we know the rock there is this many years old, therefore..." or "This human skeleton has a bigger skull therefore it is evidence of the missing link..." That is all observation and speculation. But nobody ever mentions that, do they?
I have seen profs in my CS classes argue over things like whether one algorithm is better than another simply because they prefer it. They both have the performance runs and mathematical formulas to "prove" their point, and all that stuff is accurate. But they are biased about such meaningles things like this, and refuse to see sense because they mixed their pride up in this. Any of you who have been to a university know how arrogant most of those professors are. It doesn't matter if later someone can convincingly prove one way is better, they will ignore it or hide it or make up stuff to fool the masses who don't know better. The one thing academia will NEVER do is admit they were wrong. It is impossible. So what do you think happens when a subject mixes the pride of the intellectuals with religion and politics? They won't budge and will fight anyone who even suggests they are wrong.
Notice that it only happens to pro-Christian ideas? They are all about teaching diversity of sexual preferences, comparing other religions to Christianity, and more - they'll even experiement with new way to teach things like math. Haven't you seen through it yet? Diversity is simply a buzzword that is used to push what certain people want. They don't really care about treating all people equally or anything like that? It's just a convenient way to sneak an agenda. If they truly cared about presenting all ideas equally, than they would be all over teaching intelligent design so students could compare and decide the truth for themselves. But now that they have their way, they will do whatever it takes to fight opposing ideas because it's easier to force an idea down someone throat when they are clueless to alternatives than actually debating the merits of your ideas.