Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

We also elected GW ..... twice.

/collectively, we're not a very smart group

 

If you haven't read it then you should. It's available as free download E book and extremely interesting not because of what it says so much as the way he did what he did and drew the conclusions he did with the material available to him at the time.

He comes across as the most humble, modest man you have ever had dealings with.

 

I didn't come from no monkey.....

But seriously, happy Darwin Day.

 

I'm not so sure. Are we truly free to reject reality because we think we know better? What's the point of scientific truth - even the concept that there is such a thing - if we're not going to bother teaching it? Believing whatever the hell we want - regardless of evidence and knowledge - isn't freedom at all. It's a form of mental illness.

 

It's nice playful fantasy to believe that a mystical friendly guy "created" us to somehow be better or more noble than everything around us.

When you get right down to it, as bipedal animals, we are the most dangerous animals on the planet. Can we strive to do great things, even noble things? Sure we can

At the other extreme, during the middle ages, all in the name of "enforcing" the Church's viewpoint, some truly barbaric torture devices were used. More recently, whether putting puppies in a bbq or a cat in a microwave, some of the less evolved humans have proven we're not all that great

 

.....and then you have Mrs Suleman that gave you and me 14 kids to support for life

 

Thank you Mr. God, you explained how you made things.

 

Darwin doesn't get enough respect, I'm glad to see his ideas are getting some media attention this year (Darwin year!).

The people who say they don't believe in Evolution should be referred to as "evolution deniers" (in the same way one would use "holocaust deniers"). Science doesn't care what proportion of the general population 'believes it', only how much scientific evidence supports the hypothesis.

Darwin's theory has withstood 150 years of rigorous scientific testing, it's so well supported that it's ridiculous to deny it. And anyone who would call it "just a theory" are getting 'scientific theory' confused with an 'idea' (something one has after too much coffee and not enough sleep).

_ This thread could have a survey; I'd be interested to know how many Priuschatters accept that evolution is a valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth - I suspect the number would be well above the national average. We're an enlightened bunch, after all. (Hows that for smug?) _

 

The "theory" of evolution isn't really a theory. It's a hypothesis proven by experimental observation. In that sense, it is pure science. No theory is science unless it is verified by observation. Stephen Hawking's space theories, for example, are not science because they haven't been proven by observation. Einstein's relativity theories, on the other hand, have been proven by experiment and are accepted science.

The average person in America is ignorant of science for at least two reasons: 1) the K12 public school system is probably the worst of any major country, because it is run by the local yokels and is not uniformly funded. And 2) the media is ignorant of science as well and doesn't know how to communicate it to the public.

The result is a population ill-informed of the significance of science. Scientific issues get politicized when scientific fact runs counter to religious beliefs, and the average person doesn't know the difference. The media is no help in resolving such conflicts.

Science is fact based on observation. Religion is wholly based on faith--not observation. The average person doesn't know the difference. That is reflected in poll results related to Darwin, Global warming and other science-related issues.

 

Happy birthday, Charles. Maybe in another 200 years humanity will have evolved sufficiently to accept the validity and implications of your life's work.

 

"Old Charlie stole the handle, and the train it won't stop going. No way to slow down..."

From "Locomotive Breath" by Jethro Tull. Cheers Charles! Happy 200th.

 

That's what makes it a theory. I think you've confused theory and hypothesis there. Hawking has made some hypotheses about space and the universe, but they're not confirmed/denied by experiment, thus they simply remain untested hypotheses and NOT theory.

 

That's right, a theory is much higher on the scientific totem pole than a hypothesis. A theory can often provide an explanation and mechanism for a collection of related hypotheses, and a theory has withstood a long history of attempts to falsify it.

Its actually even higher on the totem pole than a law, because a law explains how something behaves, but not why it behaves that way. A theory on the other hand does offer an explanation for how the phenomenon works (a mechanism).

 

Darwin was an experimentalist, not a theoretician. He observed first, then he formulated an explanation for what he was observing. Call it hypothesis, theory, or what you will. The word "theory" is misused in describing Evolution. It is a theory grounded in experimental observation--not a theory in the sense of religion.
That distinction is not made by the layman or by the media, and is the root of much of the misunderstanding. A lot of this is political, based on the age-old clash of science and religion dating back to Galileo et al.

Theoreticians are scientists who use mathematics to build models and make predictions, which then must be verified by experiment to be accepted science. A theory is no good unless it agrees with experiment.

 

No doubt! How about that horny 12 year old boy in England who got his OLDER girlfriend knocked up?

Alfie Patten: No Prosecution For 13-Year-Old New Dad From Eastbourne | UK News | Sky News

No doubt the British taxpayer will have those three sucking on the government teat forever too

Yeah, I'm jealous of that kid. When I was that age, I was still thinking about baseball and recess, not activities that involved cueing up romantic music

 

is there such thing as a Religious Theory? I've never heard that term.

Of course theories must agree with experimental data. If they didn't they'd be discarded or at least refined. Hypothesis and theory as usually confused by laymen or are considered to be equivalent when they most certainly are not.

Darwin's theory has been refined based on further evidence from the fossil record... the concept of punctuated equilibrium was not posited by Darwin himself, but was added to Darwin's concepts based on evidence from the fossil record which showed that evolution proceeds quite slowly until there is a significant perturbation to the environment.

Darwin was both an experimentalist and a theoretician. He formed his theory based upon observations (data) that he collected. My understanding is that he did not set out on the HMS Beagle with a theory in hand. All scientists start out with a hypothesis that is (hopefully) falsifiable. Then they or others perform experiments in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis passes the tests then if may become theory or be absorbed into a larger theory/hypothesis.

 

Again, I don't think Canada is much better. At least not from the results I've seen recently

The problem with letting hillbillies dictate what gets taught, is a horrific generational spiral downwards into superstition, ignorance, and the inability to compete or even function on the global stage