Wrong. They are two completely separate subjects. Implying that just because two things have one similar attribute, they therefore have many more similar attributes is a logic fallacy. Yes evolution and gravity are both considered to be under the theory category (one similarity) but that does not at all imply that their degrees of theoricalness (or whatever the word may be) are the same. To state such is to commit the logic fallacy I talked about.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

At one time, I made a rather thorough post thread containing my general response to what you're doing here: conflating the scientific definition of 'theory' with the common definition of 'theory'.

"Just a theory" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

I don't mean to be presumptuous, but it is clear that you are doing so because your statement makes no sense if you use the scientific definition of the word 'theory'. You would essentially be saying "...evolution is an idea that adheres rigidly to the scientific method and has never once been shown to be false in the face of countless experiments because it is questionable". I did this by substituting the scientific definition of theory for your use of the word. As you can see, the statement makes no sense.


This is one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method. Karl Popper coined a term called falsifiability - the idea that any valid scientific theory could, at any point, be proven and shown to be false. In fact, in order for a theory to become a theory, it must meet the criterion for which you condemn it here. This (falsifiability) is one of the main reasons that gravitation, evolution, quantum mechanical laws, relativity, etc are considered theories and "Intelligent Design" is not. ID falls short because it is not falsifiable.

I understand your point about extrapolation as logical fallacy, but I don't think that applies here. The argument is whether a scientific notion meets the criteria for being a theory or not. So, citing the definition of theory and casting things as similar when they both meet that definition is hardly fallacious. It's directly relevant. What you're saying would apply if he had pointed out that gravitation and evolution both end in "tion" and are therefore equally valid. Pointing out that they are both considered to be theories immediately makes all aspects of being a theory relevant.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Two completely separate subjects, both reflective of current science's working knowledge of the universe.

*blink*

Er, no. Not my point whatsoever.

All throughout this thread, I have been seeing a distinct difference between the popular definiton of "theory", and the scientific usage of the term.

The whole reason this "debate" happens at all is because most people confuse the two. My point in saying gravity is also theoretical was to mention that evolution, like gravity, is not merely some wild, unfounded guess, as in the common term.

What isn't theoretical is other countries' laughter at us that this is even talked about as a serious educational debate.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

@Drgoodtrips

I don't think ID or creationism can even be a hypothesis, and certainly is not a theory.

(Can't see your previous thread as I have unpredictable archives issues, so I may be redundant, here, w.r.t your thread.)

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Saying one should teach creationism is unfairly imposing something on the Bible that it was not meant for.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

The reason evolution is taught as science is that evolution has a large body of scientific EVIDENCE to back it up & lead one towards a logical conclusion based on what we know about other areas of science that are based on scientific FACT such as genetics, reproduction, species adaptation etc.

Evolution ties directly in with other areas of science that we KNOW to be factual. IOW, we know that animals reproduce via the fertilization of a female's egg by a male's sperm cell, & NOT via a deity who lives in some ethereal world somewhere that no one has ever seen, who puts his/her spirit into the animal's womb & creates an embryo without any physical involvement from an opposite sex member of the animal's own species.

Because of this tie-in to those other areas of scientific FACT, we can draw a direct cause-effect relationship between reproduction, genetics & environmental adaption to the continuation & transformation of different animal species over thousands of years which brings scienctists to the logical conclusion that animals evolve in order to adapt to their surrounding environment over long periods of time via genetics & reproduction.

There is absolutely ZERO such corroborating evidence to support creationism, & the idea that an invisible all knowing-all seeing being decided for some reason to create a world & fill it with creatures, some of whom would go extinct & die leaving their skeletal remains behind for man to study, & lead himself to an innaccurate conclusion about the origin of life is more on par with fairy tale fantasies than it is with scientific theory that is based on observable, verifiable fact.

That is why it is considered acceptable to teach evolution as a valid, viable science over, above & to the exclusion of creationism.

But hey, Jimbo, it's Florida.

If your state wishes to plummet down the educational rankings, and come on down to Arizona's retarded level, so be it.

We already know from the 2000 election y'all can't add, so, what the hell?

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Evolution is not taught as science over, above or to the exclusion of creationism. It is taught as science because it is scientific. Creationism is not taught as science because it is not scientific. It's that simple. Referring to any other categorization - such as one over the other, one above the other or one in exclusion of the other - is opinionated nonsense.

So says YOUR OWN opinionated nonsense.

That didn't even make any sense. Basically you said in essesnce, the same thing I did, then you said what I said was opinionated nonsense.

Please explain exactly what you meant by that.

If you can.

Or were you just attempting to sound like an obnoxious ass for no reason?

So cool that the search function has been made available. Now I can finally find what I referred to:
Please notice that, while you didn't literally say that creationism should be taught as science, you disagreed with Danno that teaching creationism as science is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

Of course, an "alternative along with" a scientific issue should, by definition, be a scientific alternative or it doesn't make much sense as an alternative.

Hence our state advertising slogan... "We do things differently in Florida".

Besides, we saw how you Arizonans were suffering in solitude, & knowing that misery loves company we're attempting to join you.

Either that, or we're trying to make Kansas look intelligent by comparison.

Well, we're getting to the same conclusion that evolution is scientific and that creationism is non-scientific but we're getting there differently.

I can certainly try.

For example, you say that the reason evolution is taught as science is that it has a large body of scientific evidence to back it up, etc. This is where creationists and other similarly inclined folks get the idea that it's the amount of evidence that's the reason evolution is taught as science. However, that is *not* the reason. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence there is, - what matters is simply that the issue is scientific.

You also said that we know that animals do not reproduce via a deity. We know no such thing. We can't know such a thing. This is where creationists and other similarly inclined folks get the idea that not knowing something is equal to something not being scientific. The thing is simply that we can't use science in order to investigate it and *that* - not that we don't know it - is what makes it non-scientific.

Lastly, you imply that science is somehow taught above divine creation and that it therefore excludes such religious ideas. This is where creationists and other similarly inclined folks get the idea that some people are only out to get them and their faith. However, the situation is merely that scientific issues are scientific and religious issues are not.

Unless one assumes an opinionated position, the situation is *never* that one thing is above the other.

No. But you're of course welcome to such an opinion.

If you search further, you'll find that I meant that there should be a disclaimer such as "Not everyone believes in evolution but rather in creationism..." and then explain what those beliefs are. I didn't mean teaching a two-week session of nothing but creationism.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that a theory you are teaching is in a theory.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

It was implied that creationism should be taught as science, regardless of any disclaimer and regardless of any explanation of why beliefs would be taught as science. There is no reason whatsoever to pass non-scientific stuff off as science.