Is evolution still a controversial theory?

Here is my point of view, I believe life itself was created by something, exactly what something was is beyond human comprehension. And I also believe that the something  left life to evolve, set everything in motion and left us alone.

John Cairns, I have asked a scientist about the beginning of the universe and the answer I received made me smile and ended the discussion.  He said that is why it is called a theory.  I responded with "Yes, Theory.  It's just a theory."

As for the horizon of our universe we have an idea of what is outside of our universe.  It's not hard to see with the oval shape of our universe see there's something constricting it in some places and something less constricting in other places.  When I was a child I didn't have to see my house from the outside to know it's shape.  I was able to walk around inside the house and get an idea of the shape.

I do find that science does a lot of question dodging just like religion does.  Both science and religion provides solid, confident answers about a lot of things.  When both are asked to clarify these answers eventually both pull the parent card suffering an inquisitive child "I don't know."

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

John Cairns, I have asked a scientist about the beginning of the universe and the answer I received made me smile and ended the discussion.  He said that is why it is called a theory.  I responded with "Yes, Theory.  It's just a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84u08tOsfg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

I do find that science does a lot of question dodging just like religion does.

I doubt that.

 

Both science and religion provides solid, confident answers about a lot of things.

LOL! Wow, are you serious?

 

When both are asked to clarify these answers eventually both pull the parent card suffering an inquisitive child "I don't know."

That is really, really poor logic. We do not need ALL the answers to have SOME answers. Anyway, science does not necessarily provide truths. It provides relatively useful models of physical reality.

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

John Cairns, I have asked a scientist about the beginning of the universe and the answer I received made me smile and ended the discussion.  He said that is why it is called a theory.  I responded with "Yes, Theory.  It's just a theory."

Not to beat the point to death, but just look at the definition of theory

Dictionary: the·o·ry   (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

There are other uses of the word, but this is the scientific meaning (mathematicians have an even more precise use, but that's by the by).

Anyway, back to the point. Your scientist - obviously representative? - gave you what answer then, exactly? The Big Bang, presumably, made you smile?

As for the horizon of our universe we have an idea of what is outside of our universe.  It's not hard to see with the oval shape of our universe see there's something constricting it in some places and something less constricting in other places.  When I was a child I didn't have to see my house from the outside to know it's shape.  I was able to walk around inside the house and get an idea of the shape.

You have an idea of what's outside time and space? Like what? I'm no physicist, but I'm not sure that time or cartesian space has any concept outside the universe. Just because the universe has a defined shape, doesn't mean there is anything outside that space. There may be, but that's by no means certain. Hence we don't know.

I do find that science does a lot of question dodging just like religion does.  Both science and religion provides solid, confident answers about a lot of things.  When both are asked to clarify these answers eventually both pull the parent card suffering an inquisitive child "I don't know."

Science "dodges" only questions that are unanswerable, at least for the time being. Religion provides solid answers indeed, that is by and large the great appeal of religion, and specialises in unanswerable questions. However, stating something is true without possibility of doubt means nothing without evidence. The point is that scientific answers are "real" i.e. evidence based and religious or spiritual answers are "not real" (I don't think theists would disagree with me on this, although they might object to my terminology). Whether you wish to accept "not real" answers to the questions in your life, that's up to you.

The "I don't know" card gets used in different ways though. The scientific parent will answer "I don't know (yet)" to questions that he or she does not know the answer to, but for answers that he or she does know, these can be clarified down to chemical reactions and subatomic particles if necessary. The religious parent answers "God did it" or "only God knows" to every question, particularly those that would be answered "I don't know" by the scientific parent. The big difference, of course, is that the scientific parent can answer a lot of questions about the world, and know that these answers are true to the best of our knowledge. The religious parent can only provide answers to questions that cannot be answer scientifically - well, assuming he or she doesn't refute established scientific theories such as big bang or evolution - and cannot provide any evidence to back that up.

Darksider:

Darwin movie gets no US distributor

According to the article only 39% of Americans believe the theory of evolution.  Really? Only 39%?  Or is that article just wrong?  Maybe it's just a movie no one sees making money in US theatres because of the subject matter (a time period drama), those kinds of movies tend not to do well financially over here.

that's shitty, but on the subject of creationalism and evolution; i am a catholic but i have my won theory.  I am a person not a robot im not going to be told exactly what to think about where i came from

John Cairns:

However, stating something is true without possibility of doubt means nothing without evidence. The point is that scientific answers are "real" i.e. evidence based and religious or spiritual answers are "not real" (I don't think theists would disagree with me on this, although they might object to my terminology).

I'm pretty sure most theists would completely object specifically based on your use of terminology.  When you live your life based on a set of answers it's tough to think of those answers as "not real", even if you can't supply explicit empirical proof of them.  I suspect many would say that the evidence at hand satisfies their belief that a phenomena as "real", but you might find it too anecdotal to credit.

There's also the matter that evidence for something could exist, but is not currently accessible to us.  By your definition is the thing "real" because the evidence exists?  Or is it "not real" because we don't have that evidence?
What if the evidence became available at a later time, would it be "real" now and "not real" in the past?

John Cairns:

The "I don't know" card gets used in different ways though. The scientific parent will answer "I don't know (yet)" to questions that he or she does not know the answer to, but for answers that he or she does know, these can be clarified down to chemical reactions and subatomic particles if necessary. The religious parent answers "God did it" or "only God knows" to every question, particularly those that would be answered "I don't know" by the scientific parent. The big difference, of course, is that the scientific parent can answer a lot of questions about the world, and know that these answers are true to the best of our knowledge. The religious parent can only provide answers to questions that cannot be answer scientifically - well, assuming he or she doesn't refute established scientific theories such as big bang or evolution - and cannot provide any evidence to back that up.

This is painting with pretty broad brush strokes.  Apparently there's a bit of overlap between the categories of "religious" and "scientific" parents (or there was in 1997 at least).

In my own experience my parents appear to have a strong religious belief, and try to act according to it's dictates.  But as a kid if I'd have asked them about some physical phenomena, I can't recall a time when they would have brushed me off with a simple "God did it".  They tended to encourage curiosity, tried to explain things in physical terms to the best of their understanding, and admit when they didn't know something.  My father in particular has always seems to enjoy speculating on naturalistic explanations of any given physical phenomena that comes up for discussion, sometimes even testing a hypothesis if it's simple enough to accomplish with the tools at hand.

I can't remember a time that either of them has given the impression that their belief and interest in God invalidated an interest in trying to understand the physical world.  I can't remember them ever saying, "Only God knows," about something either, but that statement doesn't seem like it would be in conflict with their outlook.  After all, as with "I don't know (yet)", the phrase intended is really "Only God knows (at the moment)".

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

John Cairns, I have asked a scientist about the beginning of the universe and the answer I received made me smile and ended the discussion.  He said that is why it is called a theory.  I responded with "Yes, Theory.  It's just a theory."

As for the horizon of our universe we have an idea of what is outside of our universe.  It's not hard to see with the oval shape of our universe see there's something constricting it in some places and something less constricting in other places.  When I was a child I didn't have to see my house from the outside to know it's shape.  I was able to walk around inside the house and get an idea of the shape.

I do find that science does a lot of question dodging just like religion does.  Both science and religion provides solid, confident answers about a lot of things.  When both are asked to clarify these answers eventually both pull the parent card suffering an inquisitive child "I don't know."

Be careful with the word theory. Or even the overly and inaccurately used phrase, "it's just a theory." The average person's use of the term theory and a scientific theory are not the same thing. I've certainly heard, or read about a scientist dodging a question but I'm not sure how much this applies to science as a whole. It's such a general comment you made I don't really know how much I can say concretely in response to it. I will say however that I have absolutely no problem with a scientist saying I don't know or we(the scientific community at large) does not know. It's an honest answer that drives people into the various scientific fields. That desire to know. I don't find religious "answers" to be either honest(though the giver of said answer might be) or really answers at all.

People have described my posts as rude or offensive.

shanoxilt, thanks for the videos.

It is ok to doubt that.  I wouldn't expect anyone to have the same thoughts on topics as I do.

Yes, I am serious.  My curiousity has lead to me to read many religious texts and catch the latest scientific information.  As soon as this Ardi story broke I read it.  Certainly did not expect it to answer a question I have had since I started doubting evolution.  Like many History or National Geographic shows it provides information we already know.  It also provides new information and concludes with my question unanswered.

That maybe poor logic to you.  To me it is not.  I do want all the answers to some questions.  My questions.  There are a lot questions I don't need answered.  Is it unfair of me to expect answers to questions I have?

John Cairns, His answer, "That is why it's called a theory", about the big bang did not make me smile.  There is no satisfaction in his answer.  I should not smile because he could not provide a satsifactory answer.  This isn't about me being right or him not being able to tell me what started it.  I just want to know what started the big bang.  I don't care if it was a pair of rabbit's doing the deed or something dropped some liquid on a dish and put it in a refrigerator.  I just want to know what started it.  Personally I don't think it's too much to ask.  A lot of scientists want to know also.

I do not not have an idea of what is outside of time and space.  Never said I do.  Just mentioned that the shape of our universe tells me something is not as constricting on the some sides compared to others.  We know that space is a vacuum.  When a star goes nova the debris goes in every direction equally, unless acted on by something.per Newton's first law.  That is in our space.  What we don't know is what space our universe is in.  We can see from the shape of our universe how it is reacting to Newton's first law.  Why is our universe not circular instead of oval shaped?  What is outside of the universe that is shaping the horizon so?  What lays beyond the horizon?  What does the edge of our universe look like?  I'm sure I'm not the only person that wants answers to these questions.

I wouldn't expect science to dodge questions that it can answer, just like religion.

I would be fine if science said "I don't know, yet."  That is acceptable for me.  Whenever I hear the answer "God did it" or "only God knows"  I hear a cop-out.  Neither of those answers satisfy my questions.  My father never used either of these answers.  He did give me an answer that puzzles my noodle til today.  He said "Ask God that when you see him."  This puzzles my noodle because his answer indicates that I am going to see God.  That made me think about the possibility that I won't see God.  That lead me to thinking of doing things that won't land me in heaven.  Many of those things I do now.  According to many religious people I live a life of sin and am unable to achieve redemption.  That makes me think, who are they to judge me.  Which reminds me to not judge anyone who has different ideas about say evolution than I do.  So I do not judge you or anyone else.  I am continuing to judge evolution.

Forgot to mention.  Thank you for having a decent conversation about this with me.  It is all to easy to fall into some sort of petty, childish behaviour with name calling and insults flying.

Something I found to be quite poignant while watching TiVo over the weekend.  There was a commerical about Ardi and a quote was " 'Ardi' is rewriting the story of Human origins - USA Today"  Couldn't help but laugh at that sounding just like my post of science changing it's story.  Thought it was funny.

Science being self correcting is a good thing actually.

Peter K.:

I'm pretty sure most theists would completely object specifically based on your use of terminology.  When you live your life based on a set of answers it's tough to think of those answers as "not real", even if you can't supply explicit empirical proof of them.  I suspect many would say that the evidence at hand satisfies their belief that a phenomena as "real", but you might find it too anecdotal to credit.

Indeed, I would agree with you on all points here.

There's also the matter that evidence for something could exist, but is not currently accessible to us.  By your definition is the thing "real" because the evidence exists?  Or is it "not real" because we don't have that evidence?
What if the evidence became available at a later time, would it be "real" now and "not real" in the past?

Well, let me qualify somewhat. I would regard something as "real" if it can be observed, measured, detected or its presence can be predicted by its actions on detectable phenomena. Of course I'm not saying there is nothing in the universe that exists beyond our detection or understanding - that would be absurd! Yes, I would agree that such things are indeed real even though we don't know about them (so perhaps my terminiology is lacking for my purposes too) but there remains an infinite number of potential things in the universe that we cannot detect. One would have to qualify all such things as potentially real.

This is painting with pretty broad brush strokes.  Apparently there's a bit of overlap between the categories of "religious" and "scientific" parents (or there was in 1997 at least).

Nice article, an interesting little read.

In my own experience my parents appear to have a strong religious belief, and try to act according to it's dictates.  But as a kid if I'd have asked them about some physical phenomena, I can't recall a time when they would have brushed me off with a simple "God did it".  They tended to encourage curiosity, tried to explain things in physical terms to the best of their understanding, and admit when they didn't know something.  My father in particular has always seems to enjoy speculating on naturalistic explanations of any given physical phenomena that comes up for discussion, sometimes even testing a hypothesis if it's simple enough to accomplish with the tools at hand.

I can't remember a time that either of them has given the impression that their belief and interest in God invalidated an interest in trying to understand the physical world.  I can't remember them ever saying, "Only God knows," about something either, but that statement doesn't seem like it would be in conflict with their outlook.  After all, as with "I don't know (yet)", the phrase intended is really "Only God knows (at the moment)".

Well, my analogy was to use Elisa's language on herself - I was using "religious parent" and "scientific parent" as metaphors for religious and scientific worldviews. Obviously virtually all people, religious or not, will accept scientific progress at least subconciously. You get the occasional people who do reject it, as in the link below, but I'm not suggesting that theistic people would find this story any less reprehensible than atheistic.

http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/10/07/jail-time-for-parents-who-chose-prayer-over-medicine/

Obviously, theistic beliefs can exist alongside a scientific mindset providing these are kept distinct so that God is kept in the background or in places where science cannot give answers, such as before the Big Bang - God of the Gaps, if you will. 



....................................................................................................................................................................................................

GogoPartDuex:

It's an honest answer that drives people into the various scientific fields. That desire to know. I don't find religious "answers" to be either honest(though the giver of said answer might be) or really answers at all.

Good point - indeed, the fact that there are questions (so many!) that we can only answer "I don't know" is what drives scientists (and gives us jobs!). Every scientist aknowledges and seeks out the limits to his knowledge and tries to push them. 


....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

Yes, I am serious.  My curiousity has lead to me to read many religious texts and catch the latest scientific information.  As soon as this Ardi story broke I read it.  Certainly did not expect it to answer a question I have had since I started doubting evolution.  Like many History or National Geographic shows it provides information we already know.  It also provides new information and concludes with my question unanswered.

Let's examine this Ardi thing. What exactly is your issue with the findings?

The first thing to do is to look at the information at the source.
http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

Seems that a lot of media coverage of this story has gotten things muddled up, even a press-release from one of the contributing universities said, wrongly, “Man Did Not Evolve From Apes.” Other media are even more muddled “Man didn’t descend from apes. What is closer to the truth is that our knuckle-dragging cousins descended from us.” Worst of all? Al Jazeera reporting that "Ardi Refutes Darwin’s Theory."

The solution of course is to read the actual articles I linked to above (particularly if you scroll down to "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus") . What actually happened is that certain models of human evolution based on traits shared by chimps and gorillas is probably wrong. However, this is merely a clarification of how traits evolved - this is tricky stuff, because over evolutionary time traits can be lost as well as gained, or gained independently, which confuses matters. There is no question that humans, chimps and gorillas shared a common ancestor and the article in no way disputes that. The evidence - particularly the fact that we share retrovirus-like fossils in our DNA, I can explain more on this if you wish - is absolutely conclusive. All that Ardi revises is exactly how this happened.

John Cairns, His answer, "That is why it's called a theory", about the big bang did not make me smile.  There is no satisfaction in his answer.  I should not smile because he could not provide a satsifactory answer.  This isn't about me being right or him not being able to tell me what started it.  I just want to know what started the big bang.  I don't care if it was a pair of rabbit's doing the deed or something dropped some liquid on a dish and put it in a refrigerator.  I just want to know what started it.  Personally I don't think it's too much to ask.  A lot of scientists want to know also.

It's too much to ask when that is impossible to find out! I'd like to know too, I can assure you. And there are people who propose theories but noone has come up with a way of testing this, and most believe it to be impossible to test.

The problem here is that you want, demand, an answer. I understand that. But there is no answer to be had. It cannot be known, because we can only collect information on matter and energy within the universe. There is no frame of reference or even any idea whether the question makes any sense because time started at the Big Bang too, so there may not have even been a "before." So you continue to seek an answer and presumably find one in religion. Personally, I think that is faulty logic, because there is simply no answer to be had. Why is it better to settle for "a couple of rabbits doing the deed"? Or, from real religions, a giant vomitting, a snake shedding its skin, a god masturbating, etc.?
 
Why is an absurd answer better than one which is real, "we don't know?"

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

I am continuing to judge evolution.

By all means, but do so with an open mind and with possession of the facts, or else your judgement will be flawed.

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

Couldn't help but laugh at that sounding just like my post of science changing it's story.

Science doesn't tell a story, therefore it cannot change it.  Science revises it's currently accepted theories to fit the existing empirical knowledge.  This is the very purpose of it, not some sort of cop-out. It's religion that pretends, generally, to not only have all the answers, but to have always had them.  What you're doing is treating science like a religion, when it simply isn't.

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

I just want to know what started the big bang.  I don't care if it was a pair of rabbit's doing the deed or something dropped some liquid on a dish and put it in a refrigerator.  I just want to know what started it.  Personally I don't think it's too much to ask.  A lot of scientists want to know also.

I do not not have an idea of what is outside of time and space.  Never said I do.  Just mentioned that the shape of our universe tells me something is not as constricting on the some sides compared to others.  We know that space is a vacuum.  When a star goes nova the debris goes in every direction equally, unless acted on by something.per Newton's first law.  That is in our space.  What we don't know is what space our universe is in.  We can see from the shape of our universe how it is reacting to Newton's first law.  Why is our universe not circular instead of oval shaped?  What is outside of the universe that is shaping the horizon so?  What lays beyond the horizon?  What does the edge of our universe look like?  I'm sure I'm not the only person that wants answers to these questions.

Time and space are qualities of the universe, both related to the movement of "particles" (that being a convenient term, not to imply that they're actually solid). In that sense, they're products of the phenomenon we know as the Big Bang, which is the theoretical (in the scientific sense) model for the observable movement of bodies in space. Significant to the Big Bang theory is the fact we can't see past a certain point in time, since there appears to have been no light, and that is roughly the "time" assigned to the Big Bang itself. But you have to be careful here: since time itself is a product of the Big Bang, as is causality as we understand it, then asking what happened "before" the Big Bang or what "caused" it is fallacious.

That is to say, you're expecting the mechanism behind time and space and causality to conform to your concepts of time and space and causality. It's perfectly understandable for the human brain to fall back on its intuitive understanding of the physical world, but that primate-level understanding just doesn't hold when you get to stuff this big. For example, it's equally reasonable to suggest that the present time is the "cause" of the Big Bang, since there's no absolute reason that time should be understood in a linear sense, moving from past to future. The "reason" for the Big Bang, might as well be the universe itself, just as the "reason" for the universe can be said to be the Big Bang.

It's the same way with asking what is "outside" the universe. The universe does not have a shape like you're implying. You can't travel to the edge of it. So even if Newton's laws did apply in a macrocosmic context (which they don't, as we've known since before Einstein introduced general relativity), then your assertions would still be fallacious. Space does appear to be recursive, in the sense that it ultimately folds back in on itself, and so you could hypothetically travel in one direction infinitely and never leave the universe, despite space not being truly infinite. But that's not the same thing as suggesting that the universe itself is "shaped" like something, with some hypothetical "outside" that it's floating in and interacting with.

In short, your objections consist of your attempting to apply microcosmic concepts in a macrocosmic context and then being surprised and dissatisfied when you don't get the easy, intuitive answers you're expecting. This doesn't make you stupid, as it's normal for the human mind to want to understand things in this way, but your dissatisfaction certainly isn't the fault of scientific methodology (without which we would know none of this in the first place and you'd have even less to be satisfied with).

Peter K.:

Mr Gone:

John Cairns:

Evolution is so widely attacked because it directly interferes with people's personal beliefs, in a way that other scientific theories such as quantum mechanics don't 

Which I never understood, because the Theory of Evolution doesn't state where life originated, just that it evolves over time.

In my experience the sticking point is usually not that the theory of evolution in general conflicts with people's beliefs about the origins of life, it's that a number of extrapolations based on the theory of evolution do.

For example:

"Mutation and selection pressures caused other organisms to evolve into man."
vs.
"Man was literally shaped from clay by the direct bodily action of an intelligent being."

The theory of evolution doesn't specifically state the former of these ideas, but based on the evidence at hand the first statement does seem to many a reasonable extrapolation of the theory of evolution.

Absolutely right, except that evolutionary theory does in fact posit the first of the two. That is, the theoretical framework in question consists not only in the observation that species of organisms can change over time, but also in the precise mechanism by which that change occurs. This is the cornerstone of the field of genetics and is not in any way controversial, having as much empirical support as any model in the sciences.

This is a direct threat to all forms of creationism (including the "intelligent design" category), since the mechanism for biological change is well known and does not require any manipulation from a third party (thus making the "designer" hypothesis entirely unnecessary and therefore scientifically spurious). Creationists want to think that there's some element in the equation that biological science can't discover, and which can then be supplied by their religious beliefs, but that's simply not the case.

In short, evolutionary biology relates to the creationist notion of a divine designer in exactly the same way that meteorology relates to the idea that Zeus is hurling thunderbolts and making it rain. So yeah, it's threatening to a number of people--though it's only a small but vocal minority of fundamentalists among whom it's actively controversial, none of whom are legitimate scientists (or even possessing a rudimentary education in science).

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

I do not not have an idea of what is outside of time and space.  Never said I do.  Just mentioned that the shape of our universe tells me something is not as constricting on the some sides compared to others.  We know that space is a vacuum.  When a star goes nova the debris goes in every direction equally, unless acted on by something.per Newton's first law.  That is in our space.  What we don't know is what space our universe is in.  We can see from the shape of our universe how it is reacting to Newton's first law.  Why is our universe not circular instead of oval shaped?  What is outside of the universe that is shaping the horizon so?  What lays beyond the horizon?  What does the edge of our universe look like?  I'm sure I'm not the only person that wants answers to these questions.

So, I;ve been watching lots of shows on the Universe as of late, and they are starting think the Universe is more web shaped, looking something like this:



http://www.hpcwire.com/features/17889679.html


So, you have these tendirls of dark energy that clusters of galaxies "travel" on....its mind blowing to think about.