Evolution a theory, father says
Longtime Las Vegan Steve Brown does not oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory in the public schools. Nor does he support teaching alternative views such as intelligent design or creationism.
But Brown, a masonry contractor who has lived in Las Vegas for more than 30 years, does want the schools to teach the theory of evolution in what he calls the right way, which means acknowledging that much of the theory is just that — theory.
To get the attention of public schoolteachers, textbook writers and adherents of Darwinian theory, Brown has filed the Truth in Science initiative petition with the secretary of state’s office to amend the constitution to require a broader approach to teaching evolution in public schools. Brown must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the proposal on the November ballot.
“Does intelligent design have some validity?” he said. “Sure. But it’s not going to be taught in the classroom. Until the folks promoting intelligent design get more evidence, they are not going to win.”
Brown said his proposal and intelligent design are two separate issues.
“You have to tell the truth about evolution,” he said.
I think priests invented hypocrisy before politicians. But, they share equal custody.
Evolution is a theory. ID is a theory. The difference is that evolution is a scientific theory and ID is simply a theory.
All of physics is based on scientific theories that just happen to work well enough to get us into space, create nuclear power plants, build computers and this Internet thing, etc. The theory of ID is on the same level at all.
I think the main point of intelligent design is seeing that there’s a designed element to much of nature, not just simply “God did it”. That certain things had to have ocurred together, not evolving one at a time, in order for some things to even exist. But your marvelous reduction of this intriguing line of thought into one 3 word phrase is evidence enough that evolution in humans is obvoiusly far from reaching it’s intelligent peak.
As long as religion is taught the right way as well. Religion should be taught as what it is, superstition. Not only that, we should force churches to teach alternative belief systems like Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, Santeria, Voodoo, Rastafarianism, Atheism, etc. Can you really say your religion is right if you have not at least some knowledge of the alternatives?
I meant to say the ID in NOT on the same level (which I would hope was clear from the rest of my post anyway.).
No scientific theory “proves” anything. It is an attempt to describe what is observed. When something is observed that does not fit the theory, experiments begin to find the missing process and add it into the theory. ID sees the anomaly, instead of investigating, simply says “Here’s where God stepped in” and then quits.
No evolutionary scientist will tell you the theory is complete and explains everything. That’s what they’re doing, is investigating and refining.
why cant you believe in both ? I do? But it should’nt be taught since its a matter if FAITH you beleive in it based on your faith not facts and should treated accordingly
> I think the main point of intelligent design is seeing that
> there’s a designed element to much of nature, not just
> simply “God did it”.
Of course, not one ID proponent has ever provided hard scientific evidence of said designer. Usually the argument falls to “it’s too complex to happen any other way.”
> That certain things had to have
> ocurred together, not evolving one at a time, in order for
> some things to even exist
That’s not really what ID proponents are saying. They are saying that certain events occurred solely due to intervention by an outside intelligence for which they have no evidence of said intelligence’s existence. A scientific theory must provide predictions and a falsifiable hypothesis. I have yet to even see a scientific looking statement of hypothesis of ID.
ID is almost entirely a “god of gaps” argument.
The guy is parsing words. So what. Okay, call it theory. Evolution theory has more validation than Creationism theory. The proof is in how much the theory explains phenomena. Creationism cannot explain the atom bomb. Einstein’s equations did. People thought Einstein was nuts for saying that matter and energy were the same, as well as, time and space. He took the four basic elements of reality and showed that there really is just two: matter-energy and time-space. The next leap in science will be when the next Einstein shows that matter, energy, time and space are all equivalent. That will be an incredible moment because what it will essentially say is that something can be created out of nothing (much like the way the Universe came into being in the Big Bang). That new theory would be like extending your arm out with you palm and wishing an apple to appear– and it does, like *
Theory, or no theory, if it works, it works.
Just found this quote from Einstein. It’s nice to hear a scientist who’s not dismissive of religion.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies . . . science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/Einstein2b.html
My interpretation of what ID proponents are saying is that a creator had to have created some things as whole “systems” in order for them to exist. Because their parts are so interdependent, they could not have evolved one part at a time because the statistical odds of those interdependent parts evolving at the exact same time are nearly infinitely small. I’m really curious what the scientific response to this argument is. It seems that people get all riled up about the fact that ID points unresolved scientific issues to a creator, and don’t even address things like this with the science they base their opinions on. Not only that, when opponents of evolution point out missing pieces in the theory, evolutionists simply point an accusing finger and cry “CREATIONISM, BURN THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.
>That’s not really what ID proponents are saying. They are saying that >certain events occurred solely due to intervention by an outside >intelligence for which they have no evidence of said intelligence’s >existence. A scientific theory must provide predictions and a >falsifiable hypothesis. I have yet to even see a scientific looking >statement of hypothesis of ID.
Just because Einstein said it, it doesn’t mean he was right. He was a scientist not a theologian. Even then, he didn’t find the unified field theory after all. Religion is not the sole inspiration for truth and understanding. The idea that you have to be religious to strive for truth or understanding is risible. Its as silly as the notion that the only source of morality is religion and that without it we would have anarchy. Atheists don’t act morally because they are afraid they will go to hell, they act morally because its the reasonable thing to do.
Ultimately if religious nuts find evolution so objectionable, they should propose a better scientific theory that explains the origin of species. If they can come up with a testable theory that better explains the facts, scientists will accept it. The problem is that religious nuts don’t have a better explanation; they have a bunch of fairy tales and dogma. Over the last hundreds of years physics has undergone many changes as new theories that better explain the facts as we know them are adopted. So far we have not had any theory that better explains the origin of species, we may have tweaked it a little but so far evolution stands. If you cannot come up with a testable theory that better explains the facts, shut the hell up.
david — few, if any, astronomers and astrophysicists would offer up the Big Bang as propounding “something came from nothing” — the chalice of philosophical idealists — and the superstitious..
In fact, while the Big Bang theory remains the most popular and widely accepted, support is diminishing in a return to more dialectical analyses like those of Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term. Something still comes from something and the alternative only exists in the imagination of human beings who wish for something else.
I appreciate the fact that a least a few of you can write about this without referring to religious people as nuts, or idiots, and their ideas as superstitious, fairy tales, or otherwise insulting them. You may view them as such, but you kept your argument scientific, not personal, and I thank you for that.
What there needs to be is education about the difference between a theory in the scientific context, and a fact.
Equally again – evolution isn’t a theory, it’s a proven process. The method of this process of Evolution is the debate: Natural Selection is a theory, as is ID. However only one of these is a scientific theory – it can be backed by evidence and observation.
As I’ve said before – it’s about a lack of knowledge what the terms mean. Which is kindo f funny when someone says it “must be taught correctly” and procedes to not know what it is they want taught!
“Brown said his proposal and intelligent design are two separate issues.”
Riiight! The whole purpose of ID is to promote creationism and so is this trojan horse of a trojan horse. Fundamentalist denominations lost with a frontal assault, now they are trying covert action.
Just because people happen to believe superstitions and fairy tales doesn’t mean that they are right, that anyone else should share their beliefs or that their beliefs deserve respect. I have no respect for people who want to force their superstitions on me or my children. I have respect for facts and reality, nothing else.
Definitions of superstition on the Web:
an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Superstition is a set of behaviors that are related to magical thinking, whereby the practitioner believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events, can be influenced by certain specified behaviors. The idea of “good luck” and “bad luck” gives rise to many superstitions, such as the belief that it is bad luck to wear gold and silver together.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition
An unreasonable belief based on ignorance and sometimes fear
http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/subjects/history/medhist/page45_glossary.html
A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.
http://www.godonthe.net/dictionary/s.html
If the shoe fits…
The issue isn’t ID types setting forth the theory “God did it”. The issue is that they simply stop at that point. Go ahead and put forth the theory, but follow up with attempts quantify and “prove” it.
Steve….scientists admit and everyone knows that science is *guesswork* many times. So is the ID idea….difference is of course that science then proceeds to prove or at least point to it’s guesswork as being correct, ID just drops it at the guesswork part.
Alex…..not knowing you makes it hard to make a judgement, but from your posts I can see that you make an arguement for your view then more or less tell anyone who disagrees to, in your words *to shut the hell up*…..so much for debate.
As Harlan Ellison likes to say:
“Everyone is not entitled to an opinion, everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.”
I am not interested in the opinion of people who don’t understand science. If you are going to tell me that evolution is just a theory, then you are obviously ignorant and your opinion is worthless. If you want to be taken seriously come up with a reasonable argument that can be backed up with facts. If you don’t have facts then shut the f**k up! No one has the right to force their ignorance on other people.
Give me a theory that better explains reality and that can be tested and I’ll entertain it. Don’t come to me with legends and superstitions and expect me to respect your ignorance. If you are spouting ignorance, I will tell you to shut up.
Telling someone they don’t have the facts to back up a statement is one thing. Telling them to shut up is a reflection on your character, not their lack of facts.
You know what it is? I am tired of giving equal time to people who don’t know what they are talking about. If you let ignorant people force their beliefs on others simply because they have an opinion, you end up with anarchy. I am not interested in your religious beliefs. Keep those to yourself. If you want to discuss science, you have to understand it. If I was talking nonsense, I’d expect to be told I am full of sh*t. I don’t see why we have to pussyfoot around people who don’t have a firm grasp on reality. Its not my fault that they believe in superstitions over facts. I am not going to suffer their ignorance and treat them as if anything that comes out of their mouths should be considered and respected.
Alex, I agree: Liberals tend to hold on to some odd beliefs.
After all, they do think of political ideology, religious ideology, and scientific ideology as one in the same.
Anthony,
RE: ID’s statistical odds argument
The argument that life could not have happened naturally because it is too statisically remote is entirely without scientific merit for a couple of reasons.
First, it presumes complete knowledge of all factors and their statistical probability of occurrence in the given the conditions at the time. However, as we know, information about the exact conditions and thus our ability to form an accurate statistical analysis will never be complete. It is like arguing that finding a rock in the shape of a sphere could only happen if someone intentionally shaped it. Yet, it is possible for such a rock to occur naturally and thus without clear evidence of a shaper, we must accept that it occurred naturally. What are the odds that a species on some planet would develop technical skills such that at this exact moment in time one member of that species would compose these exact words in this exact order directed towards this exact source? The odds are so astronomical it could not have happened.
Secondly, the ID ideology does more than claim that the scientific theories that describe the fact of evolution (a.k.a. “theories of evolution”) are false. They also claim that it was created by some intelligent being. The first aspect is an attempt to disprove the scientific theories that explain the fact of evolution purely through statistical trickery rather than through empirical evidence. The second makes a positive claim for which no evidence is provided.
Based on the available evidence, If [your deity here] designed the world, It did so through evolution.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
If you can say without any dought, that there is no possibility that someone created something at some point (e.g., the universe, the planet, the life on the planet, etc.) then don’t worry what some bricklayer in Vegas thinks.
I believe he is trying to say that evolution should be taught in a way that also discusses lapses in the theory and notable “facts” used to establish the theory. For example, when Lucy’s bones were discovered proving the upright hominid. It’s okay to point out that the key knee joint was discovered 100 ft lower in the strata and almost a mile away from the rest of the bones. Even Johanson admitted that (but not until he was asked).
Don’t view this a religion-nonreligion argument because by ignoring these possibilities, you are losing your scientific argument. In other words, you are ignorant and full of s**t (hey, you said it).
If this was a double post, I appologize. My back-arrow evolved into an enter key.
Give me a theory that better explains reality and that can be tested and I’ll entertain it. Don’t come to me with legends and superstitions and expect me to respect your ignorance. If you are spouting ignorance, I will tell you to shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And, being the ignorant fool that I am I will probably pop you in the jaw, just for the *unscientific* reason that I find you to be an ass!!!
Unlike you Alex, I’m very interested in what people have to say, and why they say what they do……it’s called *learning*…….If all I want is validation of what I have already decided is the *truth* according to me or a group(ie: scientists, politicians etc.), then I would just talk to myself in the mirror.
With your attitude you don’t give a person a chance to back up or try to prove what they have stated. I think your much closer to be the *ignorant* one than the person you tell to *shut the f**k up*.
But, thats just my ingnorant opinion.
joshua says:
“scientists admit and everyone knows that science is *guesswork* many times.”
No they don’t.
Guys, please try to keep the asterisks down and civil communications predominant. We don’t want this to devolve [no pun] into usenet.
It’s kind of included in the Comment Guidelines.
OK. Have at it!
Hey Ed, I’m staying out of this one.