its a long one
this is why we spend millions of dollars on basic research. research that has no apparent value aside from being cool. cause some day, it pays off. seriously.
science is cool stuff. i wish the general public had a stronger understanding of it.
evolution in action. have you evolved?
i wanted to write a thing on evolution and intelligent design, but i found something better about evolution. check it out at newscientist.com. that basically sums up the theories of evolution about as well as i can. it's really an amazing theory. it explains so much. ecology. disease. cancer. so much. yes, it is a "theory". but a theory isn't just some hairbrained idea. it's the basis of all science. all of science is theoretical. because the scientific method cannot "prove" anything, it can only falsify. that link is a rather long wikipedia article. let me explain. no, that is too long, let me sum up. the scientific method is a process of finding things out utilizing evidence or observation. first, a hypothesis is made. a proper hypothesis has consequences or predictions. observations of those consequences or predictions are made. those observations either support or falsify that hypothesis. many difficult to test hypothesis have been put forth, such as einstein's theory of relativity. it took a number of years for scientists to devise an experiment that could observe the consequences of the hypothesis. after much testing, it became a theory. an example of making and testing a hypothesis is the blackness of crows, how do you prove the hypothesis that "all crows are black". well, a scientist looks at a large number of crows. they're all black. his hypothesis is supported. is it proved? no, because he hasn't seen all crows and is therefore, still falsifiable. now, is it safe to consider this theory so sound that it could be regarded as fact? probably. (incidentally, i've seen crows in tanzania that were partially white).
should creation be taught in science class? typically, it is argued that creation isn't science and therefore shouldn't be taught in school. i (and many experts) take another tack. creation can be tested scientifically and therefore could be considered science. it doesn't hold up. take this creation science hypothesis: all life was created at one time. on prediction that this hypothesis makes is that fossils of complex life forms will be equally distributed among the sedimentary layers." what is our observation, to suport or discredity this hypothesis. well, life forms are distributed as fossils through the sedimentary layers from simple to complex, with complex life forms only appearing much later. incidentally, this employs an "auxillary hypothesis" that sedimentary layers reflect the passage of time with older layers below younger layers and things found in those layers existed at those different time points." scientific theories are complex and interdependent. it would be impossible to simply throw out the theory of evolution and pop in the theory of creation. so many other theories would have to be modified and discarded. a theory that fits existing theories is a stronger theory. theories of creation just don't do that. the portions of life that evolution does not explain that creation would explain (if any) are far less than those that evolution explains than creation does. so, on the whole, we accept evolutionary theory and reject creation science.
so, creation is bad science. do you teach bad english, history or math in schools? no. why teach bad science? seen this way, the issue is fairly clear. or so it would seem.
but then a new challenger came: iintelligent design. little changed from straight up creation, intelligent design attempts to appear as a scientific theory. and of course, politicians are calling for a compromise, "teach the controversy". what controversy? there is no controversy. evolution is not remotely controversial among scientific thinkers. ID is a crafty opponent because it poses as science. it is not truly science, however, as it is untestable. it cannot be falsified, which is the key to the scientific method. read the wi
science is cool stuff. i wish the general public had a stronger understanding of it.
evolution in action. have you evolved?
i wanted to write a thing on evolution and intelligent design, but i found something better about evolution. check it out at newscientist.com. that basically sums up the theories of evolution about as well as i can. it's really an amazing theory. it explains so much. ecology. disease. cancer. so much. yes, it is a "theory". but a theory isn't just some hairbrained idea. it's the basis of all science. all of science is theoretical. because the scientific method cannot "prove" anything, it can only falsify. that link is a rather long wikipedia article. let me explain. no, that is too long, let me sum up. the scientific method is a process of finding things out utilizing evidence or observation. first, a hypothesis is made. a proper hypothesis has consequences or predictions. observations of those consequences or predictions are made. those observations either support or falsify that hypothesis. many difficult to test hypothesis have been put forth, such as einstein's theory of relativity. it took a number of years for scientists to devise an experiment that could observe the consequences of the hypothesis. after much testing, it became a theory. an example of making and testing a hypothesis is the blackness of crows, how do you prove the hypothesis that "all crows are black". well, a scientist looks at a large number of crows. they're all black. his hypothesis is supported. is it proved? no, because he hasn't seen all crows and is therefore, still falsifiable. now, is it safe to consider this theory so sound that it could be regarded as fact? probably. (incidentally, i've seen crows in tanzania that were partially white).
should creation be taught in science class? typically, it is argued that creation isn't science and therefore shouldn't be taught in school. i (and many experts) take another tack. creation can be tested scientifically and therefore could be considered science. it doesn't hold up. take this creation science hypothesis: all life was created at one time. on prediction that this hypothesis makes is that fossils of complex life forms will be equally distributed among the sedimentary layers." what is our observation, to suport or discredity this hypothesis. well, life forms are distributed as fossils through the sedimentary layers from simple to complex, with complex life forms only appearing much later. incidentally, this employs an "auxillary hypothesis" that sedimentary layers reflect the passage of time with older layers below younger layers and things found in those layers existed at those different time points." scientific theories are complex and interdependent. it would be impossible to simply throw out the theory of evolution and pop in the theory of creation. so many other theories would have to be modified and discarded. a theory that fits existing theories is a stronger theory. theories of creation just don't do that. the portions of life that evolution does not explain that creation would explain (if any) are far less than those that evolution explains than creation does. so, on the whole, we accept evolutionary theory and reject creation science.
so, creation is bad science. do you teach bad english, history or math in schools? no. why teach bad science? seen this way, the issue is fairly clear. or so it would seem.
but then a new challenger came: iintelligent design. little changed from straight up creation, intelligent design attempts to appear as a scientific theory. and of course, politicians are calling for a compromise, "teach the controversy". what controversy? there is no controversy. evolution is not remotely controversial among scientific thinkers. ID is a crafty opponent because it poses as science. it is not truly science, however, as it is untestable. it cannot be falsified, which is the key to the scientific method. read the wi
posted by pleasure @ 8:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home