Creationism Debate May Hit Pennsylvania in Upcoming Legislation

[TsukinoRei]

*facepalm*]

 

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

 

 

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

[16]

 Notice the heliocentric theory is still a theory, though it has been disproven.  

 

 

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semanticcomponent by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is under the theory.^[13]

Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they make the same predictions. A pair of such theories is called indistinguishable, and the choice between them reduces to convenience or philosophical preference.

The form of theories is studied formally in mathematical logic, especially in model theory. When theories are studied in mathematics, they are usually expressed in some formal language and their statements are closed under application of certain procedures called rules of inference. A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference. A theorem is a statement that can be derived from those axioms by application of these rules of inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems provide solutions to real-world problems. Obvious examples include arithmetic (abstracting concepts of number), geometry (concepts of space), and probability (concepts of randomness and likelihood).

Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent, recursively enumerable theory (that is, one whose theorems form a recursively enumerable set) in which the concept of natural numbers can be expressed, can include all true statements about them. As a result, some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely, as mathematical theories. (Here, formalizing accurately and completely means that all true propositions—and only true propositions—are derivable within the mathematical system.) This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of scientific knowledge.

Underdetermination[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Underdetermination

A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if, given the available evidence cited to support the theory, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with it that is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

Intertheoretic reduction and elimination[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Intertheoretic reduction

If there is a new theory which is better at explaining and predicting phenomena than an older theory (i.e. it has more explanatory power), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly. This is called an intertheoretic reduction because the terms of the old theory can be reduced to the terms of the new one. For instance, our historical understanding about "sound," "light" and "heat" have today been reduced to "wave compressions and rarefactions," "electromagnetic waves," and "molecular kinetic energy," respectively. These terms which are identified with each other are called intertheoretic identities. When an old theory and a new one are parallel in this way, we can conclude that we are describing the same reality, only more completely.

In cases where a new theory uses new terms which do not reduce to terms of an older one, but rather replace them entirely because they are actually a misrepresentation it is called an intertheoretic elimination. For instance, the obsolete scientific theory that put forward an understanding of heat transfer in terms of the movement of caloric fluid was eliminated when a theory of heat as energy replaced it. Also, the theory that phlogiston is a substance released from burning and rusting material was eliminated with the new understanding of the reactivity of oxygen.

Theories vs. theorems[edit source | editbeta]

Theories are distinct from theorems. Theorems are derived deductively from objections according to a formal system of rules, sometimes as an end in itself and sometimes as a first step in testing or applying a theory in a concrete situation; theorems are said to be true in the sense that the conclusions of a theorem are logical consequences of the objections. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true and expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are incorrect, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often theories are corrected to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. An example of the former is the restriction of Classical mechanics to phenomena involving macroscopic lengthscales and particle speeds much lower than the speed of light.

"Sometimes a hypothesis never reaches the point of being considered a theory because the answer is not found to derive its assertions analytically or not applied empirically."^{[citation needed]}

Edited August 10, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[TsukinoRei]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html#theorytobetested

 

Have a wade through the evidence for macro evolution at the above site.

 

Please note that just because there is evidence for something does not mean that it is true, it only increases the likelihood of it being true.  There is always the possibility that more evidence will one day arise that disproves the evidence or gives us more understanding of the evidence so that it points to a new conclusion.  However, claiming that there is no evidence at all is certainly untrue.

[JDavis]

 

If it makes you happy.

 

That's just an incredibly lame response.

 

So, one day I am walking down the beech and I come across my name written in  the sand with shells.  I think, how did this get here?

 

I say to my friend who was walking with me "I think someone put this here by design".  He says is that falsifiable?  I would have to say that no it is not.  So, with your logic the conclusion that someone put it there is off limits.

 

 

Well the first question I would ask is, "What do you mean "by design"?"  Then if you answered "I mean a person did this", then yes, that certainly is testable.  Depending on the circumstances, we may even be able to find out who actually did it (DNA tests, eyewitness accounts, footprints in the sand, etc.).

 

 

While it might be testable, is it falsifiable?  can you ever prove that it was not done by a person?

[JDavis]

Again, as you correctly noted in other threads science does not operate in "proof".  

 

And yes, there can be potential evidence against the notion of a person lining up the shells (e.g. the beach was evacuated for days, heavily guarded, and you were the first people there).

 

yes, there can potential evidence against the notion, but can you ever really falsify it?

 

for each of your objections I could provide a possible answer. 

[JDavis]

Of course you can falsify they hypothesis.  You seem to be thinking that "falsify = absolutely prove it didn't happen", which given your previous posts on science operating on probabilities, seems a bit odd.

 

Anyways, I've got things to do today. 

 

you should not speak of odds or probabilities, those are not in the favor of the evolutionist.   

[Guest]

Therefore, "God did it" is untestable and unscientific. 

 

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

~

 

Evolution - Observe It

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

- Measure It

 

"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '? Isaiah 45:9 (NASB)

 

- Test It

 

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8 (ERV)

 

That's What Modern Western Science Is All About

 

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 2 Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

[TsukinoRei]

 

Therefore, "God did it" is untestable and unscientific. 

 

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

~

 

Evolution - Observe It

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

- Measure It

 

"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '? Isaiah 45:9 (NASB)

 

- Test It

 

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8 (ERV)

 

That's What Modern Western Science Is All About

 

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 2 Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

 

 

While acknowledging the hands of the Potter does the jar deny it is made from clay, or that it was spun on a wheel or hardened in a fire?  Does it deny the constituent parts of that clay or the bonds that continue to hold it together?  When it meets a nice other jar and fall in love, and they get married and produce little ramekins through their union - does understanding the medical science of procreation make the little ramekins that will somehow some day grow up into jars, because wow this analogy has gone too far, make the little ramekins any less made by the Potter?  If not then understanding the process by which the Potter may have made the first jars should not demean the Potter either!

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[JDavis]

you should not speak of odds or probabilities, those are not in the favor of the evolutionist.

Why? Because you say so?

If you have something definitive, write it up! If it's good, we'll get it published.

I thought you were knowledgeable on this topic. the odds have never been in the favor of evolution, only vast amounts of time make them tenable.

It is also the driving force behind the multiverse theory.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

you should not speak of odds or probabilities, those are not in the favor of the evolutionist.

Why? Because you say so?

If you have something definitive, write it up! If it's good, we'll get it published.

I thought you were knowledgeable on this topic. the odds have never been in the favor of evolution, only vast amounts of time make them tenable.

It is also the driving force behind the multiverse theory.

 

 

Physics is the science behind the multiverse theory, not evolutionary biology.  The 'driving force' if there is one and if it can be called that, is the Higgs Boson.  The math is vastly beyond me, but it is basically about trying to make the math that describes the universe add up.

 

 

 

"It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in fundamental physics," explains Barr. "Why is the mass of the Higgs particle 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its 'natural' value?"

Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the LHC. But so far, there is no hint of them.

"That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention," he adds.

Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an "unnaturally" small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Barr explains that one way to account for this is to say that the Higgs boson mass varies place to place (which can happen in a multiverse) and only in those rare places where it has the right, unnaturally small value would life emerge and someone exist who could measure it.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking-universe-groundbreaking-theory-multiverse.html#jCp

Edited August 12, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[JDavis]

you should not speak of odds or probabilities, those are not in the favor of the evolutionist.

Why? Because you say so?

If you have something definitive, write it up! If it's good, we'll get it published.

I thought you were knowledgeable on this topic. the odds have never been in the favor of evolution, only vast amounts of time make them tenable.

It is also the driving force behind the multiverse theory.

Physics is the science behind the multiverse theory, not evolutionary biology. The 'driving force' if there is one and if it can be called that, is the Higgs Boson. The math is vastly beyond me, but it is basically about trying to make the math that describes the universe add up.

"It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in fundamental physics," explains Barr. "Why is the mass of the Higgs particle 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its 'natural' value?"

Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the LHC. But so far, there is no hint of them.

"That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention," he adds.

Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an "unnaturally" small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Barr explains that one way to account for this is to say that the Higgs boson mass varies place to place (which can happen in a multiverse) and only in those rare places where it has the right, unnaturally small value would life emerge and someone exist who could measure it.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking-universe-groundbreaking-theory-multiverse.html#jCp

I didn't say evolution was the force behind the multiverse theory, I said probability was.

Which your post helped to highlight.