|
What
is the truth
Is
there any such thing as the absolute truth. There are only the most
probable truths.
There
is no such thing as absolute proof.
Regarding
the physical world, the best we can do is note that in the world as we know
it, the presently available evidence points to "such and such"
as the most probable answer to our question.
When
you ask a question that relates to the invisible aspects of reality such as:
"What is God?" or "What is the true nature of a human
being?" the probability of finding a provable answer is simply
non-existent.**
|
**
For example, please answer
the following questions: Is a human being a physical body with an
unknown, non-physical part that we call a soul? Is he an
eternal, non-physical being temporarily inhabiting a physical body. Or is
he simply a clump of Earth matter that has magically acquired consciousness
-- a consciousness that will cease to exist when the body dies?
|
Use
the info below for concepts
excerpted
from Creation Science Debunked: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
14.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory and therefore...
an
educated guess
an absolute certainty
a
load of crap
a verifiable hypothesis
"Well,
evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different
things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's
data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret the
evidence. They may also be nothing more solid than fantasies of the
mind. Facts
don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's
theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome of human debates. And humans evolved from
ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some
other yet to be discovered."
--
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", Science and
Creationism
"Today,
the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist
minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire
adherence to religious principles."
--
James Watson, winner of the Nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of
DNA
The
Theory of Evolution is a theory and therefore... a verifiable hypothesis.
One
of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution
is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard
from conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance,
during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience,
concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only,
and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not
yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once
believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123, Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge
1982 p. 28)
This
accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of
science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions
are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty.
Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is
only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of
our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it
deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is
important in understanding and in countering creationist arguments, since the
word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from
its scientific meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies
have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically illiterate, and
have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific thinking, and the creationists
always make a point of appealing to this popular ignorance).
In
the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is
unproven--an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which
the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a
theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then
it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science,
however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the
scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and
information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered,
the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This
hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A
hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean
when they say "theory").
Once
a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new)
to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is
contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or
discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed
the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory--i.e., it
becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of
various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are
formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the
theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly
predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree
of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a
hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has
demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability.
When
a related group of theories are correlated to one another and demonstrate the
ability to be predictive and to explain the data, they form a scientific model.
Models are the intellectual framework within which vast areas of particular data
are explained and described. They also serve to indicate potential new areas of
research and new hypotheses which can be tested to see if they can be integrated
into the model.
An
example may help to illustrate these distinctions. Observational data indicates
to us that we can see the masts of tall ships while they are still far out on
the horizon, before we can see the deck or the hull. We can also observe that
the shadow of the earth, cast upon the moon during a rare eclipse, appears to be
circular. We can therefore formulate the hypothesis that the earth is round.
This would explain all of our data. Using this hypothesis, we can predict that,
if the earth is indeed a sphere, we should be able to sail completely around the
earth without falling off or coming to an edge. And, if this experiment is
performed, we find that we can indeed do so. Our hypothesis has now been
verified by experimentation, shows itself capable of correlating a variety of
disparate data, and shows an ability to be predictive, and is therefore
established as a scientific theory, the Theory of the Round Earth.
If
we combine our theory of the round earth with other theories such as the theory
of a round moon and a theory of heliocentrism, we can formulate a model--the
moon orbits around the earth, the earth orbits around the sun, and all are part
of a system of planets orbiting around a central star. This is the model of the
heliocentric solar system.
Please
note that none of this is to be treated as an absolute fact. It is entirely
possible that some later observation or data will completely upset our model.
Many times, a model must be modified and altered in order to explain new data or
to expand its explanatory power. No scientific model can be viewed as an
absolute proof. Perhaps at some point in time the shadow of the earth upon the
moon will be seen to be a square, or perhaps one day we will see that the moon
does not really revolve around the earth. However, based upon all of the data we
possess currently, we can conclude that neither of these possibilities is very
likely, and we are justified in having a high degree of confidence in the solar
system model. Although it has not been (and cannot logically be) proven to an
absolute certainty, it has been verified by every experiment we have conducted
so far, and it has proven to have profound predictive power.
This
model then becomes a basis on which to formulate new hypotheses and to
investigate new areas of research. As various scientists produce new data and
formulate new theories and hypotheses, a consensus will be reached about which
theories are better suited to the data and which have a higher degree of
confidence. In this manner, the model is constantly being modified, improved and
expanded in order to encompass more and more data. Scientific models can never
be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the
universe increases.
Thus,
scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they
are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively
closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is
done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since
no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not
have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered
tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.
The
current theories of evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian gradualism through
natural selection, punctuated equilibria and neutralist evolution) together
constitute a scientific model. This model has survived (with some modifications)
every experimental test, and has not been invalidated by any data or evidence we
now possess. Evolutionary theory has demonstrated an ability to correlate and
explain a wide variety of disparate data with a high degree of confidence, and
has proven to have the ability to predict experimental results and to point out
new areas that may be investigated for new data. As a scientific theory, the
theory of evolution has the same standing and authority that atomic theory, the
theory of relativity and the theory of quantum physics possess.
excerpted
from Creation Science Debunked: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
|
