People with little or no understanding of scientific inquiry frequently misunderstand the nature of scientific theories. Evolution is a scientific theory and that is not pejorative. It simply means that experimental results can be predicted and tested. As soon as someone conducts a test that refutes a theory, it must be revised or discarded. For example, Newtonian physics was one of the most extensively tested theories in the history of science, but Einstein began asking questions about speeds approaching that of light and the theory had to be revised. Some people thought Newton's ideas had been "proved" but in science, that is not possible.

The problem is not that evolution is a theory, rather that "intelligent design" is not. No one has formulated "intelligent design" hypotheses that are testable: can we conduct an experiment that either corroborates or refutes the theory? ("Proving" a theory is only possible in constructs with absolute base assumptions such as mathematics. It is never possible to "prove" a theory in real world applications since a single contra-result is sufficient to require revision and one can never have conducted all possible experiments under all possible conditions.)

Science and religion do not conflict (except in the minds of some ignorant people); rather science and religion speak to different questions: how does our world work vs. why are we here. Who is to say that God did not create the world as we know it and give us the intelligence to discover how it works. Maybe God directed the "big bang" - or maybe not. That is the arena of religion.

A big problem with "theory" is that the general public understands the actual word to mean something along the lines of a "plausible explanation." Like, "The police have a theory on how the crime was committed." The weight of this word in that context is a lot lighter than how the scientific community uses it.

And that's the problem: the scientific community defines "theory" to a much higher standard and the public doesn't understand that. I've always understand scientific theory to mean that it is believed true because all the tests applied to it have come out true. Because scientists can't deal in absolutes, a theory is about as good as we're going to get.

I think that proponents of evolution should at least start pointing out what it means to be a scientific theory and how it differs from what people generally understand the word to mean.

"Who is to say that God did not create the world as we know it and give us the intelligence to discover how it works. Maybe God directed the "big bang" - or maybe not. That is the arena of religion."

Somehow, this strikes me as contradicting your second paragraph. What you are saying is that because there hasn't been an experiment designed to test the Big Bang or other unexplainable phenomenon, that we should just assume that "God did it".

Shouldn't our goal be to not just blindly state "God did it" and to look for an experiment that does examine the most likely cause of such a creation?

a. "Evolution is the means by which life gradually developed from a single-celled entity into a human being."

This is science.

b. "God created the world in 7 days"

This is unthinking religious zealotry.

c. "God guided the gradual evolution of life, over a billion and a half years, from a single-celled entity into a human being."

This is NOT SCIENCE. It is religion, which is informed by the scientifically determined facts.

d. "Evolution is a purely natural process that has no influence from a divine being. The gradual evolution from a single-celled organism to a human being occured with NO influence from any God."

This is also NOT SCIENCE. It is also religion that is informed by the scientifically determined facts.

Both c and d are religion, not science. Both are entirely unproven and entirely unprovable statements of belief regarding real science. Science itself neither disproves nor proves religion... there is no statement regarding religion inherent in scientific inquiry.

The only thing that science DISPROVES is individual assertions and assumptions about the natural world that were put forward by people who believed the world is flat... The very few people that believe that every "jot and tiddle" of the bible was written by God could clearly have their faith threatened by science... but most people's faith has more depth than that.

Very well stated. As a scientist with an interest in evolution I appreciate what you said here, it is something I have been trying to get through to creationists and evolution supporters for a long time but never could articulate it as well as you have here. I have found to my dismay, that many who claim to "believe in evolution" are often as clueless about the scientific method (and biology as a whole) as the creationists. This part I have been saying until I've been blue in the face, primarily to those that believe in evolution!!!

"Proving" a theory is only possible in constructs with absolute base assumptions such as mathematics. It is never possible to "prove" a theory in real world applications since a single contra-result is sufficient to require revision and one can never have conducted all possible experiments under all possible conditions.)

What you said here is right on the mark and many people don't get it. To say that you believe in evolution in the first place is wrong.

I do not believe there is a moral and self aware god. Religion to me is basically organized philosophy. While my fist love is science, philosophy is a close second. Philosophy is for a attempting to ask the questions that we are humanly unable to test. There is no laboratory for "why are we here". Evolution, as elegant as it is can never answer 'why', only how. Although, there may not be any answer to why, we most likely just are here because in nature only what can happen will happen.

Tell you what, stop using the (primitive) word "God" and call it what it really is, "The Universe," and we'll call it even. Bam, problem solved!

I almost wish we could come up with an acceptable new term to replace "theory," the word's been degraded so much. In common usage, it can simply mean 'any crackpot idea about a thing or how it works.' In that usage, my 'theory' about why the mail is late or what's wrong with the toaster is as good as anyone else's 'theory,' which is to say, not much good at all.

D) is pretty close to accepted scientific thinking, although a scientist wouldn't be likely to add that second clause about evolution occuring "with NO influence from any God." They wouldn't mention God at all, since there's no reason to do so. Evolution occurred for natural reasons and on a natural basis...nothing supernatural would be a part of it, because science doesn't consider the supernatural.

It may not be science, IOW, but it sure ain't religion.

Science and religion do not conflict (except in the minds of some ignorant people); rather science and religion speak to different questions: how does our world work vs. why are we here

Your distinction mirrors Gould's conception of the "non-overlapping magisteria" of religion and science, a distinction which Dawkins and others of his ilk oppose, though as a practising agnostic myself I have no issue with it. Science explains how we got here, but not why, a conundrum for which most humans take solace in religion.

A friend of mine, who is a theoretical physicist, suggests that there is a larger body of scientific evidence supporting the "theory" of evolution than there is supporting the "theory" of gravity, because despite the apocryphal apple falling on Newton's head so much of theoretical physics is pure mathematics and difficult to "prove" empirically. Most religionists seem to have no problem with the "theory" of gravity, so one wonders why they cavil at the "theory" of evolution.

Most of its adherents don't understand the terms well enough to identify it as such... but it most certainly is a religion.

example d is an expression of a tenet of atheism - not science. It happens to incorperate scientific understanding, as does example c... but both are expressions of a belief concerning religious concepts - which means both are expressions of tenets of religious faith.

I had a very long discussion on the nature of atheism as religion quite recently, though it started out as a mere statement concerning the "separation of church and state", which means some of the discussion wouldn't be relevent here.

<link>

I'm not concerned about what "discussions" you've had elsewhere, you're simply wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion or religious belief; for you to say "atheism is a religion" is like saying "day is night." It's false-to-fact.

Your claim in the aforementioned thread about government "sponsoring atheism" by not posting any kind of religious symbolism was bullshit too, incidentally. No wonder you got so many posts to your thread. It amounted to little more than trolling.

"Most religionists seem to have no problem with the "theory" of gravity, so one wonders why they cavil at the "theory" of evolution." Probably because gravity is observable on a human scale. The people who puzzle me are the ones who don't believe in evolution, yet aren't troubled by bacterial adaptation. I know a few conservative Christians who accept (and worry about) bacteria changing generation-by-generation to become resistant to antibiotics. Yet these same people are unable or unwilling to see how this is evolution on a human-observable time scale. The wonders of human psychology.

Works (sort of) as a (weak) semantic argument and no doubt scores you a few points on these boards, but still, it is glib to conclude that because a semantic argument can be made lumping it (Atheism) in with the category of God-centric, supernatural, "faiths," that it is even remotely the same as those others or as unlikely to be true as they are. I know you think it makes you oh so clever, but it really doesn't help the case for the existence of a magical sky God snapping "his" fingers and creating stuff out of thin air. People just need to learn to just say, "I don't know and I'm fine with that," rather than just making up any old crazy shit just to have an answer for things they don't understand.

But simply saying "your wrong" doesn't say much for your debating skills. Nor does it in any way support your point.

:)

Unless you define night as a "presence of not-day", then the parallel fails badly.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God. That, last I checked, was a belief concerning a religious matter... aka "a religious belief".

You're reacting exactly like a Christian that is told the narrative of the virgin birth is a myth (it is).

Just because you happen to agree with or believe in a specific faith doesn't exempt the tenets of that faith from the standard philosophical definitions and classifications.

Think about it... and maybe consider some of the discussion which you so valiently refuse to read. (Refusal to consider any assertion that disagrees with a tenet of you faith also shows parallels to some of the more zealous Christians I know).

:)

by insulting and harassing them into rejecting their faith and the faith of their culture... so that they can follow yours.

It is an improvement on the old fashion "convert or die" evangelism, but not much.

The simple fact is that we both have a very deeply held belief concerning divinity. Both of us have exacly zero chance of proving our faith to be true... so we rely on our personal lives and our personal experiences to guide us.

Somehow, you believe that your life and personal experience is inherently superior to mine - though you have exactly the same degree of proof (zero) - so you lash out with insults and venomous barbs... while I am simply defining and clarifying our stances - something that would be done in any basic philosophy class.

Why do you feel the need to lash out at me, when I am doing no harm nor am I even mis-stating or mis-characterizing a single tenet of your belief?

:)

Think about it.