Go to Sundry Weekend Ramblings
- Add a comment
- Go to I Was Vegging On the Sofa Last Evening, Pondering and . . .
Gome, I am definitely familiar with scientific methodology
but I find it most unique to think that scientists, by replicating some part of the evolutionary process, can then extrapolate their findings to the whole of evolution. It's one thing to replicate a few 100 or even a 1000 processes in what is most likely a rather sterile and controlled environment, when for this earth and its contents to evolve, would have required multiple gazillions of mutations in a very uncontrolled setting.
From a health care perspective, I see far too many mutative processes gone awry. Mutations, leading to natural selection and survival of the fittest, is something I simply don't see in my line of work.
Sure, the theory of Creation is speculative, but far easier to believe if one is open to the idea.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 5, 2006 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks MandaLee!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 5, 2006 at 6:28 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS, I'm laughing at your way with words.
Yes, I'd have to agree, it was!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 5, 2006 at 6:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes,
Excellent post!
posted by
Amanda__
on June 5, 2006 at 7:57 AM
| link to this | reply
What a sofa ride, JanesOpinion.
posted by
TAPS.
on June 5, 2006 at 5:06 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - it is hardly a "crock"
Tell me how many of these following criteria are met by the "theory" that life was created by an omnipotent being.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
These are just the basic steps of scientific method. To elevate a hypothesis to a theory, there is further criteria which includes inevitable provability. Like it or not, evolution has been proven and corroborated countless times. It is incomplete as a means of proving our origins but it is not offered as a scientific law in this regard.
posted by
gomedome
on June 4, 2006 at 8:06 PM
| link to this | reply
That's lovely, Gomedome.
Of course I would assume you are insinuating, then, that evolution meets the "minimum in scientific standards"? Yeah, there's a crock. One definition of theory is "speculation". As far as I'm concerned, both are, at best, speculative.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 4, 2006 at 7:09 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - no, you wouldn't be accused of any of those things
You'd just be accused of not meeting the minimum in scientific standards when you refer to something as a theory, when it is not.
posted by
gomedome
on June 4, 2006 at 7:00 PM
| link to this | reply