Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? (Part 1)

Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact," or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of ...

there is also a second part here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_1.html

[TedHOhio]

My take is that the DI finally got tired of being hammered of their tactics of "Evolution is only a theory" and "Intelligent Design is a theory" arguments, which tend to backfire.

In my opinion they are playing word games. Yes, we know many words have multiple meanings and when the word is used, you have to consider the context in order to determine which definition is appropriate. The problem is simple, the DI still wants to have their pet concept,'Intelligent Design' accepted as a theory. I think it's been made rather clear that their use of the word has been ambiguous in a deliberate attempt to mislead and misdirect people, and it has taken them at least two parts to sort-of admit it.

I'll be clearer in a much shorter post:

"ID is not a scientific theory, and calling it such is a lie!" (TedHOhio, 2008)

There, now if they wish to continue to use the word 'theory' in its unscientific colloquial way, they can, but watch what will happen. Instead of using the phrase 'scientific theory' they will call ID a theory and then shortly thereafter make a claim for its basis in science. This way they can still mislead without making it obvious.

I say they should substitute the word 'idea' and avoid using misleading terminology, but I know that won't be happening anytime soon.

[Bud]

It's both.

Just like gravity.

This really isn't a difficult concept to understand, it's more a case of certain people refusing to accept it.

[Primewonk]

From the DI website -

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

==========
PW - Since irreducible complexity has been falsified (over and over and over), ID can no longer claim to be a theory. Do these buttmunches not understand these things?

[TedHOhio]

Primewonk wrote:

From the DI website -

==========
PW - Since irreducible complexity has been falsified (over and over and over), ID can no longer claim to be a theory. Do these buttmunches not understand these things?

They haven't admitting to understanding yet -- and their marketing carries on! They know it's not a theory, but to admit that would cast doubt on their pet idea, and sources of funding would dry up and blow away.

This two part article is just another obsfucation tactic. I'm surprised they admitted Evolution is a scientific theory, but did you see how they twisted things to do so. ID is as much a scientific theory as Astrology and Feng Shui!

[Reverend Mikey]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
They haven't admitting to understanding yet -- and their marketing carries on! They know it's not a theory, but to admit that would cast doubt on their pet idea, and sources of funding would dry up and blow away.
This two part article is just another obsfucation tactic. I'm surprised they admitted Evolution is a scientific theory, but did you see how they twisted things to do so. ID is as much a scientific theory as Astrology and Feng Shui!

Agreed, and there are so many ID "theories" too, which one if any should be believed?

Personally, I subscribe to this ID theory:

http://www.venganza.org/

[TedHOhio]

Reverend Mikey wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed, and there are so many ID "theories" too, which one if any should be believed?
Personally, I subscribe to this ID theory:
http://www.venganza.org/

It makes perfect sense to me! FSM, Pirates and Beer, what could be better?

[Primewonk]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes perfect sense to me! FSM, Pirates and Beer, what could be better?

Um, Ted? You forgot the strippers!

[McGoo]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes perfect sense to me! FSM, Pirates and Beer, what could be better?

Pirates????

I hope that's not "American" Football you mean. Everyone knows there's only one true football.

Association

[charlieb1950]

TedHOhio wrote:

My take is that the DI finally got tired of being hammered of their tactics of "Evolution is only a theory" and "Intelligent Design is a theory" arguments, which tend to backfire.
In my opinion they are playing word games. Yes, we know many words have multiple meanings and when the word is used, you have to consider the context in order to determine which definition is appropriate. The problem is simple, the DI still wants to have their pet concept,'Intelligent Design' accepted as a theory. I think it's been made rather clear that their use of the word has been ambiguous in a deliberate attempt to mislead and misdirect people, and it has taken them at least two parts to sort-of admit it.
I'll be clearer in a much shorter post:
"ID is not a scientific theory, and calling it such is a lie!" (TedHOhio, 2008)
There, now if they wish to continue to use the word 'theory' in its unscientific colloquial way, they can, but watch what will happen. Instead of using the phrase 'scientific theory' they will call ID a theory and then shortly thereafter make a claim for its basis in science. This way they can still mislead without making it obvious.
I say they should substitute the word 'idea' and avoid using misleading terminology, but I know that won't be happening anytime soon.

Thats b-llsh-t

[charlieb1950]

Well ted.it now looks like the theory is going to be in question marks for yours and my life spans.Too bad ,we will not be around for a couple million years to prove each other wrong.hee hee hee

[charlieb1950]

The scientist,claim a theory as a fact.Its kind of funny,that it takes so long for anything or body,to transition into a higher form.I quess,now its just a guess is,that is all the believers in a theory of evolution are not going to be around to be proven wrong,and they know that for sure.No theory there.

[Primewonk]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>Thats b-llsh-t

No charlie, it's not. In fact you might want to read up on what happened in Dover. The DI, brave noble stalwarts that they are, pulled out before the trial - intellictus interruptis (gotta love the road runner). And when asked on the stand, under oath, if ID was a scientific theory, what do you think Dr. Behe said? Come on charlie, google it for yourself so you believe it.

One other snippet - The DI, brave, noble stalwarts that they are, keep claiming that ID is not about religion. That it's not about the prototypical christian god. If that's so, charlie, then why in their internal documentation do they say, "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid

[Primewonk]

charlieb1950 wrote:

Well ted.it now looks like the theory is going to be in question marks for yours and my life spans.Too bad ,we will not be around for a couple million years to prove each other wrong.hee hee hee

charlie, were you dropped on your head a lot as a child? Do you have a T-Shirt that reads, "I Ride Short Bus"?

These guys have (patiently) explained to you over and over that theory in the colloquial sense is not the same as theory in the scientific sense. You, charlie, do not get to set the lexicon for how science works. You, charlie, do not have that right. You, charlie, have not EARNED that right. You haven't done the work. You haven't spent years in college learning the science.

[TheGavin]

charlieb1950 wrote:

The scientist,claim a theory as a fact.Its kind of funny,that it takes so long for anything or body,to transition into a higher form.I quess,now its just a guess is,that is all the believers in a theory of evolution are not going to be around to be proven wrong,and they know that for sure.No theory there.

How many times have people taken the time, both politley and not so politely to explain EXACTLY what a theory is, in scientific terms?

A scientific theory, takes all the evidence and currently known facts, pertaining to the particular "theory" being presented, and explains why all that evidence joins together and confirms the theory. It's pretty simple...although I may have over simplified it.

It's not a "belief"...it's real world evidence. If it was a "belief"...you could put ANTHING you wanted into it. "Because the person on the other side of the mirror told me so......I found the word evolution partly spelled out in my alphabet soup, so that's good enough for me......There was a nail on the sidewalk, which was pointing towards my neighbor's house, the first letter of their name begins with an E...that's OBVIOUSLY a sign for Evolution, thus...confirmed."

[charlieb1950]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
charlie, were you dropped on your head a lot as a child? Do you have a T-Shirt that reads, "I Ride Short Bus"?
These guys have (patiently) explained to you over and over that theory in the colloquial sense is not the same as theory in the scientific sense. You, charlie, do not get to set the lexicon for how science works. You, charlie, do not have that right. You, charlie, have not EARNED that right. You haven't done the work. You haven't spent years in college learning the science.

That was a good one lmao.

[TheGavin]

Correction to my post, in the second paragraph...it should read...

..."and explains how all that evidence joins together and confirms the theory."

[Katydid]

charlieb1950 wrote:

The scientist,claim a theory as a fact.Its kind of funny,that it takes so long for anything or body,to transition into a higher form.I quess,now its just a guess is,that is all the believers in a theory of evolution are not going to be around to be proven wrong,and they know that for sure.No theory there.

You are hopeless Charlie, just hopeless.

[charlieb1950]

I am not the one who is setting the lexicon for how science works.You evolving theorists are the ones who are doing that.Damn,man can not you see and understand what you are saying?I have asked for one and only one,sample of something or someone for that matter,that is in transition as a matter as proof.I do not get get anything but derision from you and ted and the others.Apparently,all of you have evolved to a higher level.Where were you when the universe was created?Or to use your lexicon ,slowly unravelled and still unraveling,hence,the expanding universe?

[MIDutch]

charlieb1950 wrote:

Well ted.it now looks like the theory is going to be in question marks for yours and my life spans.Too bad ,we will not be around for a couple million years to prove each other wrong.hee hee hee

Mr. Charlie1950, the ToE may be a question mark for you and many "fundamentalist christians" here in the US (and some fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East), but the rest of the world regard it as a valid scientific explanation for the biological diversity we see on earth today.

YOUR opinion of the theory obviously doesn't hold much weight outside of your small world.

[Primewonk]

charlieb1950 wrote:

I am not the one who is setting the lexicon for how science works.You evolving theorists are the ones who are doing that.Damn,man can not you see and understand what you are saying?I have asked for one and only one,sample of something or someone for that matter,that is in transition as a matter as proof.I do not get get anything but derision from you and ted and the others.Apparently,all of you have evolved to a higher level.Where were you when the universe was created?Or to use your lexicon ,slowly unravelled and still unraveling,hence,the expanding universe?

charlie you're getting your knickers in a wad again. Folks have posted hundreds and hundreds of times about transitionals. We've explained that every species that has not gone extinct is a transitional. We've also told you that speciation happens at the population level and not at the individual level. Is there some reason you are not getting it?