Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Post Reply New Topic

and just cause you say all the evidence is crap yet never explicitly even describe what you're referring to... is no way to effectively argue against evolution

Actually, evolution IS a fact. Evolution by natural selection is a theory.

this is obviously not the case for me

im tryin to work with ppl here

i would still consider evolution a theory cause the observable is: change over time (as i was allowed to say in public schools)... and evolution is just an explanation for this observance. natural selection, genetic drift, ect... are also theories, but they are nested in evolution.

it's all semantical anyway... which is why people argue over it.

The semantics are important in this case, since people want to nitpick over fact, theory, etc.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is.

Well, evolution (that things change) is just historical fact. We've observed it happen. Natural selection is the theory, as is genetic drift and all the other components. But evolution itself can't really be denied any moreso than gravity. Actually, I would view gravity as being more in jeopardy than evolution because of the conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity... physicists are pretty confused over that one. Evolution doesn't really have any such fundamental difficulty.

Yeah, the common use of the words has lead to a misunderstanding that creationists (among others) have seized upon.

yes... but TECHNICALLY even gravity is a theory...


i have told Ragtime a few times before (a long time ago) to go jump off a cliff... as a sort of joking rebuttal to this sort of thing (<3)

but i still say it's meritable to call these things theory... especially since when they were initially investigated... the answer wasn't really that obvious... you can't just look at the world and divine these sorts of things.

Not really, what he said WAS pretty stupid and arrogantly so. I'd get angry about something that wrong myself, especially in a field I cared about.


ID isn't an attempt to point out the holes, it is an attempt at a counter-theory, which is intellectually dishonest because ID is does not have evidence for it so much as evidence against evolution. Also, Raggy, the first part isn't evidence as that is an appeal to popularity, and the second isn't even that true given all of the unverified and unverifiable things that occurred in that book.


Um... no, they are actually very well thought out, and seem reflective of some intellectual honesty. Frankly, Raggy, I hear enough technocrats, Marxists, and other groups arguing that economists are buffoons to take that claim by you, a person who does not seem to be a biologist or to have studied any great measure of biology, with any measure of seriousness. Trust me, I know that, I also know a bit about science, so I know that IDers are not making scientific claims despite that some of their members are scientists and that Evolutionary theorists are making scientific claims despite the fact that some fools are casting aspersions on them.

Yeah.... sure. Raggy, you have not even put forward any good evidence anyway for his existence, just proclaimed that the evidence is all around us without the cognizance that there is a matter of interpreting the data to get this "evidence". Frankly, if anything, you seem more of a disservice to Christian apologetics, which often seems pretty poor as is, than a boon.

im agreeing with you that the observed differences and similarities between organisms across time is a FACT

but EVOLUTION is a theory for explaining this. just as the biblical view is a theory... the difference is that evolution is a scientific theory, where creationism is not.

IMHO- conceding that evolution is a theory does not take away from what it is. just teach what we know and people will decide for themselves. if people question it (which apparently they can't)... there is always a sensible answer... which more often than not, will instill in people's minds that evolution actually did (is) happen(ing)

Using the word "theory" to refer to something that's not a scientific theory in this context is just going to help perpetuate the confusion, I think.

It's just common sense.

But where's your stake? Aren't you supposed to burn me at it after you said "Recant" and I didn't?

Common sense is not so common. And as for burning you at the stake, I'd rather break you on the wheel.

I've never heard of scientists burning people at the stake for holding different views, even if those views are demonstratably wrong.

And no, it's not "just common sense." No more so than is the statement that astronomers publicly assent a a heliocentric solar system even while many privately doubt it. The two statements are equivalent, but no one would accept the example I gave as realistic. Your claim is dishonest and makes claims for which you have absolutely no basis in fact.
But then, I guess that's the thrust of ID to begin with.

If we're going to insist on going back to medieval execution methods, I'm rather partial to drawing and quartering myself.

I would love for that to be true, but I've heard too many leading experts on evolution literally cry out that "Evolution is a fact". Carl Sagan went as far as to declare: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It DID HAPPEN." (Boldface representing his inflections.)
That kind of statement is unmistakeable in what it's attempting to claim. And he's not the only one saying this -- I hear it everywhere I go! C'mon, you can't fool me on this.