Creationist Nonsense
 I’m waiting for Creationist American magazine to put out their response with a list of 1 Answers to Scientific Nonsense, where their entire article is answer is “1. God”.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.'” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.
Monday October 22nd, 2007 @ 8:12am
The already did respond. And, it’s just as stupid a response as you’d expect.
Tuesday November 9th, 2010 @ 7:28pm
All of their information is based on things people thought 10-20+ years ago! How silly…
Monday October 22nd, 2007 @ 5:09pm
Ridiculous. How did these two get a Ph.D in anything? I’m surprised they have the IQ to breathe on regular intervals.
Thursday October 25th, 2007 @ 8:16am
creationism is just so to the point. evolution just takes SO long…
Thursday November 8th, 2007 @ 3:48pm
It is comforting to have the comments of Ian, who can test the validity of writer’s P.h,D’s by their few brief writings here and yet cannot spell ‘breathe.’
Thursday November 8th, 2007 @ 4:11pm
Nice Ad Hominem there Paco..
At least I can take comfort in knowing you’re wrong because you’re ugly.
Friday November 23rd, 2007 @ 9:54am
Well – evolution IS “only a theory”; just like gravity. There was some poking in the right direction above, but it lacked clarity as I read it. When something has reached the status of “theory” among scientists, it means “we know this happens, we’re still figuring out all of the nuts-and-bolts of it, but we know this happens”.
Evolution as fact need no longer rely on the fossil record, which involves too much in the way of connecting a series of very distant dots for the average person to follow, much less find compelling. For proof of evolution, we need look no further than the nearest pharmacy. Why do we have an industry that is constantly creating new antibiotics? Because the microbes we’re trying to kill off have been evolving in response to a change in their environment over the last century. If the process of evolution did not exist, we’d still all be using penicillin for bacterial infections. We would never have heard of “antibiotic-resistant strains” of bacteria.
Sometimes the easy answer is the best.
Friday November 23rd, 2007 @ 10:34am
Gravity isn’t a theory, it isn’t a law. It’s a natural phenomena, the same way evolution is.
We can make theories and laws based on those phenomena, but that doesn’t make their existence any more or less real.
Monday December 31st, 2007 @ 6:17am
Bit late, sorry.
Lamont accepts the standard equation: bug A => bug B = dog => cat. But there’s more at play here. Not only are the dots too far apart, but there are also too many real gaps to make it work. Perhaps we should just accept that. The universe is way more compicated than we can understand. Some people are helped by their belief in a supreme being, others prefer to see science as the answer. Both defend their “religion” tooth and nail. I (just like everyone else) don’t really know what the answer is. Can’t we all just get along?
Monday December 31st, 2007 @ 10:33am
Science is NOT a religion.