Ron Paul, The Creationist Moron

[Pale Blue Dot]

http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-creationist-moron.html

I used to have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, He seemed like the only presidential candidate able to drag America out of the global mess they have found themselves in.

That was until i see him denounce evolution as "a theory".

See, Ron Paul is a christian, And like most cristians he is happy to disbelieve in science and justify it by claiming it offers no proof, And then favour an alternative "theory" that happens to offer no proof and no evidence at all, Like creationism.

If evidence and proof is so important to the religious, Why are they so willing to stake everything in an idea that offers neither? Their demands for "evidence" is simply an excuse to deny the existence of something that proves biblical creation wrong. They are dishonest, Intellectually retarded cowards. To them it's not about being right, It's just about finding excuses to justify a belief in something that is patently untrue.

Ron Paul is nothing but another "science is wrong, God done it" idiot.

Video at the link.

[JuniperLea]

1. It is a theory

It has not been proven. There is evidence, such as how viruses mutate and how people have changed over the centuries we've studied ourselves, but technically, evolution is a theory. That's why it's called "The Theory of Evolution".

[cali]

14. theories are never "proven" in science

and evolution is both a theory and a fact. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. But first you need to understand the basics. Start here with a definition of theory:

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[JuniperLea]

30. Thanks for this... you link Wikipedia...

And I link Berkeley... nice job. Thanks!

[cali]

48. It's actually the standard definition

but you're evidently not familiar enough with science to know this eighth grade stuff.

[ihavenobias]

79. Yes, thank you!

I totally agree. I've been so annoyed over the years because the average dope out there (with zero science background) constantly confuses *hypothesis* with *theory*.

That leads them to dismissively say "it's just a theory". Even smart people are guilty of saying "so what's your theory on this" or "so that's your theory". I know, I know, language evolves and people adopt and change phrases but it's problematic in this case.

I would suggest saying "what are your thoughts on this" or some variation on that and leave "theory" out of it so the word doesn't continue to lose it's meaning.

[JuniperLea]

87. You should tell that to Merriam Webster... eom

[China_cat]

15. The word 'theory' in scientific terms

does NOT equal "wild ass guess".

Scientifically, theory is explanation of how OBSERVED phenomena work.

Might as well add the scientific definition of evolution while I'm at it; evolution, a change in allele frequency over time.

[JuniperLea]

32. Who said "wild ass guess"?

Please.

Read the Berkeley links...

Listen to the Ron Paul video... he said there is not enough evidence on either side. All I'm saying is that if someone is going to bash this crack pot, do it with something worthwhile and honest.

[China_cat]

38. Those trying to make a case for creationism

will always use the word theory in a sneering way, equating it with a 'guess'.

There's a hell of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism. Hell, even the bible stories that are supposed to be absolute truth are more evidence for evolution than creationism. Unless you want to believe that all the animals supposedly on the ark are exactly the same as the ones now. (And there's mountains of evidence for the changes just in the time frame believed by creationists) You just can't have it both ways.

[JuniperLea]

39. He wasn't trying to make a case...

You should watch the linked video.

Egad... thick as a brick...

[China_cat]

44. He's a creationist, racist, misogynist asshole.

You have no understanding of science at all. I would recommend an 8th grade refresher in biology. (Your 'professor', just because he's at Berkeley, isn't anything more than a shill for religion.)

[JuniperLea]

46. You have no clue...

You should... never mind.

I won't waste my time.

[Orsino]

68. Okay. Saying that there is not enough evidence on either side...

...makes him a creationist moron. Or just another panderer to same.

Anyone who can't see that evolution is fact (excepting always the possibility that Satan really did counterfeit the fossil record), and that only mechanisms for this are being debated scientifically, doesn't need to be running a country.

There is enough evidence to conclude that evolution has taken place for as long as there's been muticellular life.

[avenger64]

72. Your statement is ignorant ...

.. and has been well-addressed. 'Theory' is not a pejorative in science - all available evidence supports evolution. For a doctor like Ron Paul to deny it is laughable.

[JuniperLea]

81. Your insults are droll... eom

[Silent3]

18. There's a big difference between theory in a scientific sense...

..."theory" in colloquial usage, as in "just a hunch".

Ron Paul is belittling evolution with the "just a hunch" take on the word.

Evolution is both fact and theory. The facts of evolution are the time scale of life on Earth, a fossil record showing different species coming and going over time, a consistency of changing morphology over time, etc.

The theory of evolution is that the fact of evolution is explained by descent with modification, driven by the selective pressure of survival.

Biblically literal creationism, especially of the "young earth" variety, is not just "another theory", it is completely at odds with factual evidence. Creationism Lite, as I like to call it (the "yeah, maybe evolution happened but God directed it" version of Creationism), is nothing more than untested and likely untestable speculation, not worthy of being considered a true scientific theory.

[Buzz Clik]

36. Right. And Ron Paul stated flatly he doesn't accept it, even as a theory.

Holy crapoli.

[JuniperLea]

45. He said there wasn't enough evidence on either side.

Holy your own crapoli.

[seemunkee]

67. It is a theory AND a fact

Evolution is a change in alleles over time. That is a fact. It has been observed in the laboratory. The mechanism that causes the change is still in debate and that is the theory.

[wildbilln864]

85. Creationism is a hypothesis! n/t

[JuniperLea]

2. View the video...

Paul himself says "there's not enough evidence on either side"... and I agree. There isn't. I BELIEVE evolution is the real deal, but that's my own belief. It could very well be, as Paul alluded to, that God created human beings by means of evolution!

BTW, that site you linked to is just as bad as Freeperville, IMHO. Anything that is so rigid and so far leaning, cannot be relied upon.

[dansolo]

83. That phrase is used to falsely equate the two

hen someone says that "there is not enough evidence on either side", they are trying to equate them. You see this same technique used in the global warming debate.

[gratuitous]

3. Evolution is a fact

Evolution is a fact, proven by the fossil record and analysis of the genetic stuff of life, as well as other things. The theories are competing views of evolution's instrumentality: Natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, survival of the fittest, a combination of the three, or some other factor that science hasn't yet discerned and articulated.

Science deals, by its own terms, with the observable, the measurable and the repeatable. There's nothing that can be observed, measured or repeated about spontaneous ex nihilo creation, and science is silent on ultimate questions of where the stuff of the universe all came from and what it might mean.

[JuniperLea]

5. Then why is it still being taught as a theory? eom

[gratuitous]

9. It's not being taught as a theory

Evolution is described as a "theory" mostly by non-scientific folks plumping for an alternate "theory," and by sloppy writers who do not or can not distinguish evolution from natural selection or punctuated equilibrium or survival of the fittest. As Stephen Jay Gould so eloquently wrote for decades, evolution is and has been verified as a fact by the scientific community for nearly 150 years, and the controversy is what causes life to evolve new species and other taxonomic classifications.

I would recommend to your reading any of the assemblages of Dr. Gould's columns for Nature magazine, including The Flamingo's Smile or The Panda's Thumb. Gould had a flair for making the nuts and bolts of his taxonomic research and the speciation of life accessible and understandable to the layperson.

[JuniperLea]

11. Berkeley is teaching it as a theory...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[mondo joe]

17. Like the THEORY of GRAVITY.

[JuniperLea]

20. Yes, gravity WAS a theory and has since been proved correct...

And is now being used in the THEORY of black holes... and in string THEORY.

Unlike The Theory of Evolution, which has not.

Read the Berkeley links... you will see statements such as "in support of the theory"... blah blah blah...

[cali]

25. you don't appear to have even a passing acquaintance

with science or basic scientific terminology.

[JuniperLea]

27. Well, if it isn't Little Miss Merry Sunshine!

Perhaps I don't, but the professor from Berkeley who just happens to be in the same club as I am just explained it to me... and I'm correct about this.

Go piss in someone else's Wheaties, dearie. Your powers of evil are useless here.

[FredScuttle]

65. You know, there are ignorant assholes at Berkeley too...

If some mouth-breathing cretin came up to me in a "CAL" sweatshirt and told me he was dead certain the world was flat, I'd think:

1) So this is what a Bush voter looks like
2) What Berkeley student did this moron steal the sweatshirt from?

[JuniperLea]

77. Not a student...

A professor. Jeez.

[mondo joe]

51. Wrong. The theory of gravity is the HOW just as the theory of evolution

is the HOW.

[MichaelHarris]

13. I don't mean to offend but

the word "Theory" is still used because of the uproar the words "fact" or "law" would cause. The "Theory" has withstood the test of time. What it can't stand is the test of the Fundamentalist.

[JuniperLea]

23. No offense...

Read my sig line... I'm not likely to be offended with something like this. I just like having things in order. I'm all for bashing Ron Paul with FACTS... but this is NOT one of those times.

Please read the Berkeley links and you will see without question why this is STILL a theory.

[mondo joe]

16. The THEORY is the how it works. Like gravity, evolution is a fact with

theories to describe how it works.

[JuniperLea]

24. No... you need to read the links provided... and look up your...

own definitions.

[cgrindley]

35. No, he really doesn't. It is a fact. And by the way, sunshine...

playing devil's advocate in this argument means that you're the enemy. Progressivism is incompatible with any species of religious belief.

[JuniperLea]

37. You should really listen to the video linked in the OP...

Seriously... this place is pretty scary when people can't let go of bashing for the sake of getting facts straight. He is NOT espousing creationism in this video. He is stating that there isn't enough evidence on either side, and he alludes to the possibility that God created human beings by means of evolution!

Sheesh.

Don't get me wrong. I think he's a crack pot... but we should bash him with facts, not made up bullshit.

[DrDan]

49. directly from that link

"its a theory - the Theory of Evolution - and I don't accept it"

what more do you need.

Quit with the lectures - the bashing is well-founded - it is clear as a bell that he does not accept it - using his own words.

[unpossibles]

58. by saying that "there is not enough evidence"

he is espousing Creationism and/or pandering to those who do. Either way, it does a great disservice.

I can choose to say there is not enough evidence for anything, but that does not make it so.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Gravity is a theory, too, and it is taught that way.

[Alexander]

4. A scientific "theory" has a LOT of clout. Before that it's a "hypothesis".

For example - Newton's "Theory of Gravitational Attraction".

Most people don't realize this until they've taken college-level science classes.

[JuniperLea]

6. Theory...

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

[JuniperLea]

7. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).


http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[unpossibles]

22. I'm still not sure you understand what a Theory is in scientific terms

and how that differs from the more common usage, which is closer to a guess.

The fact that Darwin's Theory has withstood 150 years of some of the most vigorous testing and research, as well as 150 years of the most vicious attacks, should show the strength of that theory.

So, while you are right that it has not been proven, per se, you could say the same for the Theory of Gravity. The reason is because the Theory merely describes a model for how an observable process happens/happened. Gravity exists, and theories of gravity try to explain it, just as evolution exists and theories of evolution try to explain and understand the process for that.

Were all life not related, then most of our work in genetics would basically be for nothing. You can say you believe that God created people and everything else if you choose, but that doesn't mean evolution does not happen, and frankly trying to reframe evolution as a guess or something which has not withstood 150 years of tests does a grave disservice to science and to educated debate, in my opinion. If we let ID slip in the crack, then we are going to be left even further behind than is already happening, and will not be able to compete in the world, much less understand it.

ID is called a "wedge issue" because that is exactly it's purpose - a wedge to create doubt in science to allow right wing Christians to dictate what is acceptable and what is not. It is the thin end of the wedge which is being driven into the crack of ignorance, and frankly that scares the hell out of me. I have no wish to live in a Theocracy or to experience another religious Dark Age, thank you. Yes, I realize I am exaggerating a bit, but honestly that is how I feel and the Constitution supports and protects me from such things, unless we let people like Ron Paul win, as he has stated that he believes there is no separation of church and state.


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst070102.htm

The entire nation seemed to condemn last week’s federal court ruling that the pledge of allegiance cannot be recited in schools. The notion that the phrase "one nation under God" renders the pledge unconstitutional is ridiculous to most Americans, who strongly believe that expressions of religious belief should be an integral part of public life. Yet although the public outcry against this terrible ruling is understandable, the real issue of religious freedom has not been addressed by Congress or the media.

The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.

It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.

I previously introduced legislation entitled "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.

[JuniperLea]

26. No, you don't understand...

I just had this conversation with a professor at Berkeley who writes home schooling materials.

I understand perfectly.

[unpossibles]

59. then I have to assume that (a) you misunderstood the prof

or (b) the prof is a Creationist.

Sorry. I don't care that the prof is at Berkley - whoop-de-doo.

[canucksawbones]

53. Re: Theory and Darwin's Theory of Evolution

OK, looks like you need some proper education on theory.

first a scientific theory on how something works is as good as it gets, it is the most valid statement on how something functions. In the past these were called laws, that term however is defunct as theories are ALWAYS falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable it is not a theory.

Second, a theory is never proven to be fact. A fact is a measurement, facts support a theory, enough facts in support of a theory make the theory stronger. some theories in science include the theory of gravity, the germ disease theory, the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution, all are equally strong and all have evidence (or facts) that reinforce the validity of those theories.

Third, your statement that gravity is a fact is grossly incorrect. Gravity is a theory,that theory proposes the mechanisms that cause masses to attract one another, this model is as good as it gets, but it is only a model. The facts currently support this model, but that does not mean future facts may not falsify that statement as further research ensues. To describe this more bluntly, I have a theory that the sun will rise at a a certain time (based on gravitic theory)I have no proof of this, I have a lot of measurements (the times at which the sun has risen over a long period of time, the distance from the earth to the sun, and what we assume to be correct measurements of speed of the earth's rotation and speed of the earth going arounsd the sun). These measurements allow me to predict that sunrise time, but that is not a fact it is a prediction that the theoretical models suggest. The only facts are the a priori measurements. -continued-

[canucksawbones]

60. continued: re: theory

now using the information above we can look at Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The theory is that changes in allele frequency over time cause changes to the organism, environmental pressure will select those most fit to survive in given ecological niches. (By the way, Darwin's theory makes no statement on the origins of life, the theory applies to speciation, hence the name of his book On the Origin of Species). The facts, in this case, the fossil record, observation of speciation, and experiments showing speciation and adaptation are all predictive in the theory of evolution, and as with all theories, evolution is falsifiable, but to date experiments and measured facts and observations continue to strengthen the model. Evolution predicted genetics, newe fossil finds continue to hold up the model as the model has predicted those finds.

Finally, wrt intelligent design and creationism, neither is a theory (in the scientific model) as neither is falsifiable and neither is predictive, they are both based on a priori assumptions rather than using a posteriori deduction resolved from a priori measurements and a posteriori experiments and measurements.

I suggest you look up the scientific method, theory as it pertains to science, hypothesis, experimental method, falsifiable and perhaps look at a few other theories before telling others what is fact and theory.

[cali]

61. Welcome to DU

and thanks for the cogent explanation- not that it's likely to make any difference

:hi:

[RedCappedBandit]

84. Great posts.. welcome to DU

[LeftishBrit]

8. I never had any respect for him anyway

If only he would regard RW libertarianism as 'only a theory'!

[progressivebydesign]

10. When you really understand Ron Paul, you'll find that his ideology doesn't fit.

Lots of people get sucked in to Ron Paul because of his soundbites... they make him sound almost liberal. But read between the lines, do the research, and you'll find that he's reaching those sound bites from an ideaology that is a complete antithesis of what progressives stand for. Many of the things he's against have nothing to do with anything more than not wanting to spend tax monies, or even have taxes. Libertarians are one step to the right of republicans... you know those awful property rights and anti-tax groups.. the Howard Jarvis' of the world? It's like that.

Ron Paul is so harshly and unwaveringly anti-choice, and pro-creation, that it makes me sad how many people are getting sucked into his cult of personality, without understanding what he's really about. He's only against the war in iraq because he's against all wars because they use tax dollars. He wants totaly isolationism. Just becuase Bush perverted the American Way, does not mean that we should retreat into ourselves and never help out the rest of the world.. the way we used to.

Hopefully ron paul will splinter the GOP vote enough for us... and the progressives (many of which are young and inexperienced voters) will do their homework and see that he's not what they think.

[JuniperLea]

12. Well said...

That's why it's important to show truth and lies side by side. Attacking him for this bit is not going to help us at all... splintering will help us a lot! Good call.

[DrDan]

19. a lot of respect for Ron Paul?

So his racist, pro-gun, pro-life, anti-UN, and fiscally conservative (like - do away with IRS) views did not bother you?

It took his denial of evolution for you to decide he is a quack?

[JuniperLea]

29. Where has he denied evolution?

In his own words he's said there isn't enough evidence on either side of this issue.

I think he's a crackpot... but let's not get caught up in the emotions here and stick to facts. The fact is, he never said creationism has been proved correct, but that he believes it. There is a difference.

[DrDan]

40. nope - he rejects it as a theory

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KwaNZg6nojE

[JuniperLea]

47. Did you watch your whole linked video?

Wherein he says neither evolution nor creationism has enough evidence to be deemed fact?

Jeez...

He's a crack pot, without question, but he should be bashed with facts, not innuendo!

[DrDan]

56. yes I did, including the part where he says

"its a theory - the Theory of Evolution - and I don't accept it"

[Pale Blue Dot]

66. This was NOT me.

That's why I included the link.

[DrDan]

74. oops - sorry

[sutz12]

21. We're arguing the wrong question..

It doesn't matter, really, what the definition of a 'theory' is.

What matters is that evolution is scientific, while Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion prettied up to look like science. But they're not science.

That's why they always lose in court. The smart lawyers ask the simple question, "Is this science or religion?" Evolution is science, the 'alternative theories' are not.

The real battle here is that the fundies have been trying to change the fundamental definition of what science is. If we lose that one, welcome the dark ages.

[JuniperLea]

28. You are correct...

The real issue is people have not viewed the OP's linked video and heard Ron Paul with his own words say there is not enough evidence on either side... making the OP's claim of him being a creationist moot.

[sutz12]

31. I didn't watch the linked video, because I doubt seriously that any evidence will change my opinion

of Ron Paul. His 'best' feature is that he's a libertarian. I wouldn't vote for one myself.

I already know that he is an extreme RW nutcase. The fact that he's a Creationist is kind of moot.

[JuniperLea]

33. He's not a creationist, based on what he has said here...

I'm merely saying that if someone wants to bash this crack pot, do it with something legitimate. Making shit up only makes us look bad.

Sheesh... I never saw a group of people so set against letting go of ego and emotion in order to take a simple look at something.

[Buzz Clik]

43. As for me, I'm not bashing him (or anyone else) for this.

I'm simply shocked.

[JuniperLea]

50. What? Shocked that someone would rather see him bashed...

for the crackpot he is, using real ammo, instead of this?

[Buzz Clik]

54. Eh? I'm talking about Ron Paul: I'm shocked he rejects the theory of evolution. That's it.

[unpossibles]

63. no, I still say you are not really understanding him here

his statement of "not enough evidence" is a way to weasel out of a direct answer.

To suggest that there is not enough evidence - as if there were an equal amount on "both sides" is patently ridiculous. There are several whole branches of study with tons of physical evidence and tested hypotheses which do in fact show evolution.

Simply saying "there is not enough evidence" is not only a lie, but continues to muddy the water.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Nicely stated.

I mean damn. Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution. Just damn.

:shrug:

[cgrindley]

34. He's actually a dunce

why are some people so fucking stupid? Only an absolutely braindead retard believes in Creationism. It should be banned. People who profess a belief in it should be sent to one of those old Gulags in Siberia and re-educated by a crack team of evolutionary biologists. Why oh why couldn't the atheistic founding fathers simply written "freedom FROM religion" into the constitution?

[cali]

55. well, just read some of the ignorant post on this thread

It's clear that certain people are scientifically illiterate to a pretty shocking degree. If you don't know what a theory is in science, it's pretty clear you don't know anything about science

[unpossibles]

62. I hope you're being sarcastic

about locking people up and all.

Paul is free to believe that purple faeries fly out of his butt for all I care, but he should not allowed to be President as the Cult of the Purple Butt Faeries already have too much power as it is.

We have Freedom of and Freedom from, and that's the way it should be: people can leave their religion in church and I will leave my facts at school, and ideally in politics.

[TZ]

52. It's not the HYPOTHESIS of evolution!

People mix this up with theory all the time. A hypothesis would be an unproven theory. A theory is a technical term but can be eminently observable and provable...See forensics and DNA technology....all based on evolutionary principles....

[LiberalFighter]

75. The steps

Source

The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections. The typical way in which new scientific ideas are debated are through refereed scientific journals, such as Nature and Scientific American. (Depending upon the area of science, there are many other journals specific to their respective fields that act as referees.) Before a new theory can be officially proposed to the scientific community, it must be well-written, documented and submitted to an appropriate scientific journal for publication. If the editors of these prestigious publications accept a research article for publication, they are signaling that the proposed theory has enough merit to be seriously debated and scrutinized closely by experts in that particular field of science. Skeptics or proponents of alternative or opposing theories may then try to submit their research and data, while the original proponents of the proposed theory may publish new data that answers the skeptics. It may take many years of often acrimonious debate to settle an issue, resulting in the adoption, modification, or rejection of a new theory. For example, the Alvarez Meteorite Impact theory (a 6-mile wide meteorite struck the earth 65 million years ago, ending the Cretaceous Period and causing extinction of the dinosaurs), was first proposed in 1979, and took about 10 years of debate before winning over the majority of earth scientists.

A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:

1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.

[JuniperLea]

76. "Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth"

Exactly. This is why there is so much excitement right now with regard to String Theory... there are tests going on right now that could lay waste to the entire theory, or lend further evidence to its validity.

My own thoughts on this debate on evolution vs. creation, in my Agnostic, recovering fundy mindset, is that once upon a time science and religion were one, and they will be again. I want to believe there is a creator, but that he is a scientist of sorts, and that creation actually took place over millions of years instead of the days noted in the Bible. I believe that if the Bible holds truths, they were most likely misunderstood by early peoples who didn't have the depth of knowledge we do today, combined with a great fear of the unknown. Even though our current knowledge is but a drop of water in all the oceans of truths, or one grain of sand compared to all the beaches, we are vastly more knowledgeable than people of 2000 years ago. What appears to be true today, may change tomorrow. My hope is that someday science and religion will prove each other.

[cali]

78. no. just no. science and religion were never one and

they never will be. religion is about faith. science is about falsifiability. science isn't about "proving" things. And religion shouldn't be. science is a method. all the mumbo jumbo in the world won't change that science and religion are simply not one and the same thing.

[JuniperLea]

80. So, now you are an expert in Medieval history as well...

We should be building a shrine to you perhaps?

:eyes:

In the Medieval era, some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes,<12> the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible.

I hate using Wiki as a source, but this is the best I can do in the short time I have. Not that it matters, because I really don't give a flying rat's ass what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

[LiberalFighter]

82. I don't believe that science and religion will prove each other.

Rather, religion will become a thing of the past.

The Bible is a creation of man with the intent to control men just as religion is a form of government intended to control the mass. Religion made it easy to explain the unexplainable.

The Bible is made up of writings approved in the 4th century BC hundreds to thousands of years after they were written. At best, the Bible is a history with parts in the OT written by two or more authors combined as if one. Just as Christianity is a conglomeration of Jesus and the many beliefs prevalent at the time the OT contains at a minimum the duplication of the laws. That is much of what is in Leviticus regarding the eye for an eye and other penalties can be found in the Hammurabi Code during the reign of Hammurabi (1792 - 1750 BC) while the laws found in Leviticus were about 1445 BC. The code is about 300 years before Leviticus and Moses. The OT consists of facts that are not true about living creatures. It talks about the order the earth was created but it doesn't make sense. There are 2 creation stories with conflicting history.

And this is the word of god and his word is truth.

[JuniperLea]

86. I agree with your explanation to a point...

But if you put yourself into the mind of a "prophet" all those years ago, who is trying to explain things he is "seeing" and he has no clue as to what those things are, what you get is confusion and inconsistencies. If there were anything "true" about the Bible, it has since been bastardized by the many who followed and added their own ideas. An ancient Pagan would find many familiar things in a modern Catholic Mass. A Christmas tree would be familiar as well. Many ancient writings from around the world include a flood story similar to the Biblical story of Noah. And how many Deities and prophets have December 25th noted as a birth date?

A good friend of mine once said: I just love spiritual people, but religious people scare the hell out of me. I would tend to agree with that too!

All that said, had I been alive during the time of Copernicus, I would NOT be a member of the Flat Earth Society:)

Like I said, we know so little... there are very few things that are absolute. We now know that things that appear to be solid, really are not solid at all, but are made up of billions and billions of tiny particles in constant motion. I don't think we know enough to speak in absolutes. We can guess, surmise, hypothesize, and debate until blue in the face, and still be wrong in the end. One thing I do know for sure... all we ever needed to know can be found in rock 'n roll...

"Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
To sit with elders of the gentle race, this world has seldom seen
They talk of days for which they sit and wait, all will be revealed..."

The scientists working on string theory believe that when more is known, there will be just a few very simple answers to some of life's most complex questions. I hope this will be the time when "all will be revealed"... I can dream:)

[Buzz Clik]

57. Let there be no doubt that Ron Paul is NOT on the fence on this issue:

"I think it's a theory that there is evolution, and I don't accept it as a theory."

I'll give him a tiny bit of credit for his "not enough evidence on either side" hedge, but I still find this amazing.

I have always been under the impression that Libertarians were the intellectually elite of politics. *cough cough HACK HACK!!* Er. Not so much.

[Disturbed]

64. Ron Paul is not a moron. He is a Politician that seeks power.

He wants those RW Fundie votes. He was a practicing MD for a long time that damn well
knows that the Creation bit in the bible is not science. As with most Politicians, he has studied
the demographics & the power base withing the Repug Party. He knows that he won't garner the Repug Establishment Nomination but he is garnering a power base for his position in Congress.

[Buzz Clik]

73. Ignorance versus willful ignorance. Which is preferred?

The simply ignorant can be taught. The willfully ignorant choose to be uninformed.

[Faygo Kid]

69. This means we are 6,000 evolution/creationism threads behind the FReepers

Ironically, the same age as the Earth!

Now cut it out, my fellow DUers. Creationists go elsewhere, please. And those who support creationists. This is a progressive (and scientifically literate) web site.

[mondo joe]

70. If only it were a scientifically literate site.

DU is sure not a creationist haven a la FR, but we have a WHOLE LOT of woo-woos who are just as scientifically illiterate - just on a different set of topics.

[TZ]

71. Yep both sides

have definite anti-science anti-intellectual groups. Different woo indeed. Sometimes I see almost the same types of arguments from either side (this one crackpot scientist supports my view, therefore your knowledge is wrong!)

[kineneb]

88. creationism=religious myth, evolution=scientific reality

I don't want to hear another inane argument of creation myth vs. science...just look at a chicken's feet and tell me they didn't evolve from dinosaurs...my pet chicken has "dinosaur feet"...

Now, about that elephant on the back of an infinite stack of turtles... and then the Yggdrasil tree and the Norns...

...why do the Christians think only their creation myth is valid? Even Judaism sees Genesis as allegory.