> Methinks you and Mr. Marder are mixing up genetics and evolution. Sure,
> genetics can prove some facets of evolution.
No mix up. I am not saying evolutio=genetics. Genetics can be used to
*test* some facets of evolution. And I am certainly not implying theory =
truth.
>However, the entire process
> is beyond scientific reproduction. You cannot scientifically prove, in
> reproducible fashion, that I evolved from an ape, let alone primordial
> ooze. That's why they call it a theory.
Exactly a theory is neither true or false. Its a potetnial explanation of
some phenominon. Some put too much weight on theories and present them or
believe them as truths. There are very few (if any) theories than can be
100% "scientifically" proven. I am a scientist (hydrogeologist). I have
never actually seen groundwater physically moving through an aquifer (the
theory). It does based on indirect evidence, models, and observations of
very small facets of the problem (ie the experiments). The exact conditions
cannot be recreated in a laboratory. Simplifications (all experiments are
simplification of the real system) are inevitable in experiments and models.
However, by controlling specific varibles, scientists can look at individual
facets of the theory. From that they can interpolate (or extrapolate,
within reason) the results of the experiment.
> (At best yours and Mr Marder's examples seem like a good argument for
> intelligent design: humans are intelligent, and they are designing the
> genetic experiments)
> Since evolution cannot be reproduced in its entirety,
Neither can divine creation. But I am open to viewing it as a potential
theory. And not going ape-wild if either one or both theories are proven
wrong. I personally believe in evolution based on the weight of the
evidence I have been exposed to.
one's belief in it
> seems on a par with one's religious beliefs -- and evolutionists typically
> react as though dearly held religious beliefs have been challenged
> whenever anybody points out that some facet of their theory might be
> flawed. They go ape-wire (pun intended ;).
I agree with this. True, objective, scientific inquiry is open to
reinterpretation and alternate theories that can be scientifically tested.
Scientists (and I guess I may be guilty of this too) become emotionally
attached to their theories and are offended or feel a sense of failure when
theories are "proven" wrong.
So in either case, both creationism and evolutionism require a certain
amount of faith to believe either one. In the case of evolution, one has
faith in the scientific process that develops theories and tests those
theories through observation and experimentation. Creationism requires a
belief that there is an almighty entity or creator. Either one is a valid
theories. Neither never to be really proven. But, I personally get
offended when people shove the Bible in front of me and say "see, we were
created by God!! It says it right here in the Bible."
Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST