My blog about my experiences defending science

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of defending scientific principles against creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) in public forums. Participants express concern over the misrepresentation of science at ID meetings and the difficulty of engaging with supporters of these ideologies. There is a debate about the effectiveness of attending such meetings, with some arguing it can be counterproductive and stressful. The distinction between creationism and ID is emphasized, with the latter seen as a strategy to introduce religious concepts into education under the guise of science. Ultimately, the focus should be on promoting real science in schools rather than attempting to convert individuals with deeply held beliefs.
silkworm
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
(Hello physics forums. I absolutely love the level of discussion here, and I look forward to contributing as soon as I figure out what you're all talking about.)

I attend creationism/ID meetings to defend against misrepresentations of science. Since there is no debate, I don't attend to do so, I just go expecting a valid scientific argument, explain why what was delivered wasn't one, and point out any misrepresentations of science presented at these meetings. I am blogging my experiences doing so here:

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You live in Kansas ? This is going to be a full-time job for you ! :eek:
 
At first I was intrigued and thought I would want to read more. But in your first entry you write:
Basically tell everyone you know who voted for GW Bush that this meeting is going to take place. And it's free and open to the public.

What an odd generalization to make. Especially since you repeat it at the end of the post. I'm sorry but it brings your motivations into question. For a person who claims to be so objective, you make weird subjective assumptions about who your audience is. And why make it political to begin with?

Since your opening premise implies that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing... I then have to question your credibility as well, since I have doubts you've bothered to actually investigate ID or you would not make that corallary.

Your mantra "there is no debate" is also rather dismissive. It trumps any attempt to point out that part of your premise is flawed (Creationism is purely religious and ID is more philosophical employing scientific methods). I'm sure you also use it to deflect any attempt to point out that there is no logical connection between radioactive dating and the ultimate conclusions that Darwin comes to about how complex life evolves.

But since there is no debate, I won't enter into one either.
 
It looks that way Gokul.

StarkRavingMad, I used that to try to get as many creationsim/ID supporters to the CORR meetings as possible. You can't deny that conservative christians generally support both GW Bush and creationism/ID. Also, there is no real difference between creationism/ID as the ID movement/supporters claim to be more open minded simply as a legal maneuver (an attempt to circumvent serperation of church and state). Attending these meetings held by YEC's, they let it be known that they support ID and at the same time a literal interpretation of the Bible. One of the constant attendees of these meetings actually wrote a book for ID and his bio can be found at the Institute of Creation Research.

And there simply is no debate. You can only debate policy. You can't debate whether or not evolution is scientifically valid because it is. You can't debate whether or not creationism/ID is valid science because it simply isn't. You can debate whether or not to ignore the truth, but who would do that?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with radioactive dating (but I should mention (just in case) that you can't use C-14 in the atmosphere to determine the age of the Earth)), but evolution did not begin or end with Darwin and neither did our understanding of it.

My main point is larger than there not being a debate. The main point is, and I'm assuming this due to your zero post count, people like you believe what they believe because they've been lied to about what textbook science says. I believe that many creationism/ID supporters are good people simply trying to do the right thing, and I believe this because these are the people I grew up with and was raised by, but they have simply been lied to. A simple investigation by anyone with any scientific knowledge of any creationism/ID literature and presentations makes that incredibly clear.
 
I suggest you rethink your priorities. First off, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible. It seems you're confusing distinct things here; creationism is a theological statement about the origins of the life, whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. Since creationism does not attempt to use science towards it means, it readily coexists with evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc. - just look at the Catholic church. ID crosses this line. The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science"; this is why they have fake researchers trying to create an illusion of a scientific debate (e.g., the Discovery Institute). The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut, without going around converting people - a very sensitive and emotional task! This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve political goals in the arena of public education.

To be frank, I don't think you know what's going on well enough to do any productive outreach quite yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't trust anyone whos so close minded. You've already made generalizations, claimed that some thing can't be debated (scientists never believe or dare claim any theory is 100% perfect and non-debatable), then insulted someone based on their post count which is only 2 off of yours. Be more scientific before deciding who's unscientific and who isn't.
 
Rach3 said:
I suggest you rethink your priorities. First off, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible. It seems you're confusing distinct things here; creationism is a theological statement about the origins of the life, whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. Since creationism does not attempt to use science towards it means, it readily coexists with evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc. - just look at the Catholic church. The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science". The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut, without going around converting people - a very sensitive and emotional task! This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve poltical goals in the arena of public education.

Yah and like Rach is saying, it's very discouraging to see someone wanting to defend science against unscientific ideas when the person doesn't even know what they're trying to defend science from. I mean how many people have we seen on this board alone try to defend Evolution or attack creationism with little to no knowledge of either.
 
One more piece of advice - don't attent ID'ers meetings! You're outnumbered a hundred to one, no one will listen to you and you'll only be stressing yourself out. Our arena is not convincing the die-hard charlatans, but convincing the general public, and the polticians in power (:ugh:), that ID is not scientific and does not deserve to displace real science in the schools. That's where the battle is.
 
silkworm said:
And there simply is no debate. You can only debate policy. You can't debate whether or not evolution is scientifically valid because it is. You can't debate whether or not creationism/ID is valid science because it simply isn't. You can debate whether or not to ignore the truth, but who would do that?

This kind of language is not convincing - you have to actually defend your assertions, not just assert them strongly.
 
  • #10
Oh yeah, there's no point in going to ID public lectures either - they're on the podium, and they're geniuses at abusing that power and manipulating their audience. They can very easily silence you. You can't beat them on their own ground.

Trust me, I've been there.
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-96533.html
 
  • #11
Actually things like that are very annoying Rach. He basically went up and got slaughtered because he didn't know anything. Like i said previously, I hate when people try to defend things they don't understand because he probably convinced more people ID was right then wrong with his little showcase. I found it sad so many forumers cheered his display when i saw it as a pathetic display that hurt the scientific community in its own little way. People have pretty big egos when they try to silence someone else's ego.

And to make it even worse, he basically shot himself in the foot philisophically. We're trying to convince people to believe science and not listen to people who spout their belief and refuse to listen to another approach and laugh off other ideas... yet for example here, he basically proclaimed everything this guy said as BS, refused to listen, and laughed. This isn't how you win over minds.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
I'm sorry, I haven't gotten the hang of the quote system here yet.

Rach3
If you're trying to convert people out of a fundamentalist religion, that's both deeply offensive, and essentially impossible.

I go to defend nonscientists from being lied to about textbook science. It's been my experience that the vast majority of science presented in both the literature and at these meetings is misrepresented and then the misrepresentation is then criticized. I simply go there to tell people that what they're being told is a lie. What they worship or who they worship is of no concern to me, as long as they don't use it to victimize anyone and understand that science does not consider the presence of the supreme being in its study. I've had success in this venture.

Penguino
You've already made generalizations, claimed that some thing can't be debated (scientists never believe or dare claim any theory is 100% perfect and non-debatable), then insulted someone based on their post count which is only 2 off of yours.

First of all, mechanisms of evolution are what is being debated about in the scientific community. Evolution as the basic concept that leads to the great diversity of living organisms is however as real as we are, and as a scientific concept absolutely indisputable. I wasn't aiming to insult StarkRavingMad with my mention of the zero post count, I mentioned that to show that I thought that he/she was an creationsim/ID supporter because his/her first post was dedicated to my post about my blog. There was no insult there.

Penguino
Yah and like Rach is saying, it's very discouraging to see someone wanting to defend science against unscientific ideas when the person doesn't even know what they're trying to defend science from. I mean how many people have we seen on this board alone try to defend Evolution or attack creationism with little to no knowledge of either.

I'm defending it against being misrepresented, and I'm defending nonscientists from being lied to about science. Basically I'm defending my parents and friends from making decisions based on false information and children from growing up ignorant because they believe science is evil. Please consult my blog https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/09/corr-reposted-from-april-9-2006/"

Rach3
One more piece of advice - don't attent ID'ers meetings! You're outnumbered a hundred to one, no one will listen to you and you'll only be stressing yourself out. Our arena is not convincing the die-hard charlatans, but convincing the general public, and the polticians in power (:ugh:), that ID is not scientific and does not deserve to displace real science in the schools. That's where the battle is.

I have attended IDer meetings, and I have been outnumbered a hundred to one, but I have been listened to and have had success. These are my people. My approach works. And who do you think voted for those politicians?

Rach3
This kind of language is not convincing - you have to actually defend your assertions, not just assert them strongly.

First you read my blog before making judgements about it or what I'm doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Rach3
Oh yeah, there's no point in going to ID public lectures either - they're on the podium, and they're geniuses at abusing that power and manipulating their audience. They can very easily silence you. You can't beat them on their own ground.

Actually, I do quite well. The first Lucas lecture was odd because of the format, and the next will be more odd because our interaction will take place via CCTV. I know that at his first lecture my presence did make a difference, just not as much as I would have liked because I did make mistakes there.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Ah your use of "defend" is so rare in the conversations I've been in lately that you'll have to excuse me if i took some of what you said the wrong way. I hear "defend" almost exclusively in a provoking manner such as "I will defend my right to eat cookies" or whatever that i almost forgot there's a (haha) defensive way of "defending" someone/something.
 
  • #15
Double post
 
  • #16
See what I mean? I wasn't going to reply, but you had to make it personal.

You make broad stroke assumptions about both christians and people who voted for Bush (as if neither could agree with the theory of evolution and need to be enightened), you then go on to assume the motivations of proponents of Intelligent Design -- more or less calling them liars--, and somehow come to sweeping conclusions about anyone who may agree with any of the above. But you don't stop there, you then make a personal conclusion about me.

That's not logic. That's belligerence. I'm sorry.

Thank you for acknowledging that I might be a good person at least. I like how the only way to have an opposing interpretation is because it is based on a lie. See... what you perceive as "incredibly clear", another equally intelligent person will look at and see as hopelessly flawed.

If the premise is baseless (as in Darwinism), or if the conclusion based on the evidence does not follow (again... as in Darwinism), it does not matter what happens in between. One does not have to accept the whole argument to agree with the science of it.

You look at those who adamantly support ID and see christian conservatives who just want to justify their blind faith. I look at those who adamantly refuse to accept ID as politically motivated secularists who just want to justify their aethists beliefs.

Note how I did not offer an opinion of those who accept the theory of evolution in there. Because Intelligent Design, despite your unquestionable knowledge of it, does not refute the science of the evolution of the Earth or the age of species. It only takes issue with the philosophical doctrine behind Darwinism.

And that IS up for debate.

I have no problem believing that most creationists now support ID. But it does not follow that all students of ID inherently believe in a literal translation of creation and dismiss all aspects of evolution... not to the extent that you can refer to them as a singular name with a / in it.

Anyone who claims that ID is some kind of scientific "proof" for the notion that we were created 10,000 years ago in a one week timespan is not being intellectually honest. And I dare say a good number of legitimate ID theorists would not support them either. No more so than Darwinist scientists accept money from left-leaning special interest groups at least.

An article I found on creationdigest.com sums it up better...
"The best place to [start] is not with Genesis I and the six days of creation, arguing about how long those days may have been. That immediately gets people into an issue that divides believers. The best place to start is with the Scripture that teaches the meaning of creation rather than the timetable"

Even though you are so convinced that ID is some scientificy bait and switch to somehow justify creationist beliefs, it is, AAMOF, the opposite. ID is a way to enlighten Creationists to get them more on board with science.

I won't deny that some fundamentalist christians misuse ID any more than atheist activists have misused Darwin's theories for their own agendas. But it does not make them equal.

So I'm sorry for questioning your reality in which all christians voted for Bush and believe that Genesis 1 was a scientific journal, and where there are no other possible perspectives on scientific theories... But Darwin's theory has serious, gaping, nonsensical holes that are no more grounded in science than Moses' written account of the Creation Hymn.
 
  • #17
Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.
 
  • #18
Rach... and here I was about to agree with you.
Rach3 said:
...whereas ID pretends to justify creationism from empirical, scientific means. ... The purpose of ID is to bring creationist ideas into the public schools, under a cloak of "science"; this is why they have fake researchers trying to create an illusion of a scientific debate (e.g., the Discovery Institute).

No... it's not. Perhaps some people try to misuse it as such, just as secular humanists have glommed onto Darwin as their vehicle to take religion OUT of our society. But that is not how I understand ID's intent at all.

Believe it or not, not all (again, dare I say most) reasonable Christians do not accept Creationism. We're not all fundamentalists, okay? Isn't it possible for anyone to accept something that coincides with religious beliefs as, oh I don't know... genuine?

The focus should obviously be on keeping real science in schools and reigning in the ID juggernaut,

Obviously -_-

This is the briliance of ID - it uses religious impulses to achieve political goals in the arena of public education.

Wow... and you said that trying to convert people from fundamentlists belief was insulting.

To be frank, I don't think [the O.P.] know what's going on well enough to do any productive outreach quite yet.


Well at least we can agree on something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.

Yeah sorry. I'm done. I tried hard to stay neutral, but it's still skirting the line.
 
  • #20
StarkRavingMad
I wasn't going to reply, but you had to make it personal.

I did?

...AAMOF...

I'm sorry, what does that mean?

ID is a way to enlighten Creationists to get them more on board with science.

By inserting consideration of a supernatural being and no longer requiring empirical data as has been done here in Kansas?

You're apparently giving Darwin, who I do admit I love, way too much credit. But you seem like an ID advocate. Let's check things out. You tell me what the defining work of ID is, and if I've read it/watched it we'll talk about it. If I haven't, I will and then we will.
 
  • #21
Oh and before i completely disgrace the forum, I might want to remind you guys of the Terms you agreed to (or at least were suppose to have agreed to) that specifically bans most of this discussion.

I have expressed no issue against any religion or religious people, and I hope you see that my posts don't bash anyone. All religions and religious beliefs are equal to me.
 
  • #22
silkworm said:
I have expressed no issue against any religion or religious people, and I hope you see that my posts don't bash anyone. All religions and religious beliefs are equal to me.

I don't believe discussions about ID are allowed anymore...
 
  • #23
I said I was done with the debate and I am. It runs the risk of inviting someone less tactful to chime into start -really- bashing one or both of us.

AAMOF is "as a matter of fact". It's an acronym used in chats and forums. Sorry for the assumption on that one. :blushing:

I will only add that, while I am no expert, what I have read on the subject does not coincide with how you or Rachel treat it. It alarms me to learn that this is how the philosophy is perceived. If this is people's most common exerpience with ID, then there may be more people misrepresenting it than I would have expected.

That's tragic, because I understood it to be the most brilliant reconciliation between science and faith to come into popular thought. To me it still is. It should be fuel for discussion, not another excuse to divide people.
 
  • #24
I think is has been stated before, but it is worth emphisising that; in science nothing can ever be proved, only disproved. No one can ever claim that a theory is indisputably true (well they can but they'd be wrong). No matter how much evidence is presented in support of a theory, it only takes one piece of solid evidence to bring this theory into question. Even now there is debate into the theory of evolution, such as the "adaptive mutation" theory. I cannot tell you how serious these debates are as I am not a biologist, but still a debate occurs.

Any scientist who claims that a theory is 100% unquestionably is setting themself up for a large fall.

~H
 
  • #25
Physics Forums Global Guidelines said:
Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what it not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.

This thread is liable to be locked as soon as a mentor comes online. It has turned into a messy debate.

~H
 
  • #26
In my defense (since I was "part of the problem")... I'd like to stress this part of the guidelines...

As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems.

I think we have been very neutral on the reglious front. This has been the most alarmingly civil discussion on the topic I have ever witnessed. o:) Of course that may be because it occurred at three in the morning between like four people when most of the community is :zzz:
 
  • #27
StarkRavingMad said:
Of course that may be because it occurred at three in the morning between like four people when most of the community is :zzz:

Its noon here in the UK :rolleyes:

~H
 
  • #28
I meant no religious matters to be discussed here, I was simply introducing my blog and my cause, which is to defend science from being misrepresented and nonscientists against being lied to. This sort of thing is everpresent in creationism/ID literature and presentations and is the current focus of my efforts.

Also, evolution as a scientific theory is indesputable, due to many things but also that any alternative considering a supernatural being ceases being science due to science being the study of nature. Since this is a physics forum, you may be interested to know that evolution will most likely not be talked about in the next meeting. The man presenting claims to have made a super-duper equation, "The Electrodynamic Force Law," and enjoys misrepresenting physics. There's more about that on my blog including a link to their site. (Long story short, I agree with what you're saying Hootenanny but I will gladly set myself up for a fall on evolution)

And although this thread went somewhere I wish it wouldn't have, I'd like to ask my question once more to StarkRavingMad, What is the definitive work of ID?
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Pengwuino said:
Actually things like that are very annoying Rach. He basically went up and got slaughtered because he didn't know anything. Like i said previously, I hate when people try to defend things they don't understand because he probably convinced more people ID was right then wrong with his little showcase. I found it sad so many forumers cheered his display when i saw it as a pathetic display that hurt the scientific community in its own little way. People have pretty big egos when they try to silence someone else's ego.

And to make it even worse, he basically shot himself in the foot philisophically. We're trying to convince people to believe science and not listen to people who spout their belief and refuse to listen to another approach and laugh off other ideas... yet for example here, he basically proclaimed everything this guy said as BS, refused to listen, and laughed. This isn't how you win over minds.

edit: Who or what is this directed at?

edit2 (upon clarification):
Excuse me? That was me in the link, and I must protest your awful mischaracterizations. I most certainly DID know what I was talking about - thermodynamics! And my unworthy PhD opponent also knew what he was talking about - he willfully and blatantly misrepresented it. And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Rach3 said:
Excuse me? That was me in the link, and I must protest your awful mischaracterizations. I most certainly DID know what I was talking about - thermodynamics! And my unworthy PhD opponent also knew what he was talking about - he willfully and blatantly misrepresented it. And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?

You make the impression that you were shot down and you even said you were shot down pretty much. I also don't see how anyone could pull out of that post that you saw what he said as anything but BS. Hopefully you put more thought into your arguments at the lecture then you did when you summarized the lecture.
 
  • #31
Rach3 said:
edit: Who or what is this directed at?

OP

ten characters yo
 
  • #32
And I most certainly did NOT refuse to listen or call BS - I refuted point after point, all for nothing though (the audience was mostly fundamentalists). Do you spout off ill-considered nonsense like this intentionally, or is it merely an a reading comprehension difficulty which none should blame you for?

The fundamentalist part doesn't matter, the crowd is looking for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith. For that the scientific part has to be preserved. The problem is much of the crowd is likely to have no frame of reference so you must put things in the most practical of terms, and look for feedback. If you still don't think they understand, say it again, and if still nothing say it differently.

May I ask who the PhD was?
 
  • #33
OP

ten characters yo

Is that me?

I certainly don't do that. The man is a lunatic though. While at the meetings I treat everyone with respect, but they last 3 hours and then I'm there for at least 2 afterwards talking to people so it's hard to put everything down verbatim with that much conversation. I'm trying to solve this. I got a request for a webcast of the CCTV, and I'll do my best to secure that. I think it would be good for this sort of explanation. I'm also trying to think of the best way to document and present what occurs at these meetings, it is A LOT of material however.
 
  • #34
Pengwuino said:
OP

ten characters yo

It appeared to have been directed at the preceding post, which was mine. My bad. :shy:

(but you really should have made that clear...)
 
  • #35
silkworm said:
The fundamentalist part doesn't matter, the crowd is looking for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith. For that the scientific part has to be preserved. The problem is much of the crowd is likely to have no frame of reference so you must put things in the most practical of terms, and look for feedback. If you still don't think they understand, say it again, and if still nothing say it differently.

May I ask who the PhD was?

I forget his name. He got a PhD in metallurgy at some third-tier school, then joined one of the ID institues and now goes on tour giving a standard talk. He's a stereotypical charlatan.
 
  • #36
Hootenanny said:
I think is has been stated before, but it is worth emphisising that; in science nothing can ever be proved, only disproved. No one can ever claim that a theory is indisputably true (well they can but they'd be wrong). No matter how much evidence is presented in support of a theory, it only takes one piece of solid evidence to bring this theory into question. Even now there is debate into the theory of evolution, such as the "adaptive mutation" theory. I cannot tell you how serious these debates are as I am not a biologist, but still a debate occurs.

Any scientist who claims that a theory is 100% unquestionably is setting themself up for a large fall.

~H

Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.
 
  • #37
OP as in the original post in the linked thread... not hte original post here
 
  • #38
Rach3 said:
I forget his name. He got a PhD in metallurgy at some third-tier school, then joined one of the ID institues and now goes on tour giving a standard talk. He's a stereotypical charlatan.

PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...
 
  • #39
In that case, my criticism stands. I'm going back and editing it back in.

(hint: I am that other OP...)
 
  • #40
Pengwuino said:
PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...

Physics, Biology, Theology, he's an expert in it all. :rolleyes:
 
  • #41
Rach3 said:
Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

Ah but let's not expose ourselves to the possibility of falling into the same trap physicists found themselves in before Einstein came along.
 
  • #42
Rach3 said:
Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Pengwuino said:
Ah but let's not expose ourselves to the possibility of falling into the same trap physicists found themselves in before Einstein came along.

What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.
 
  • #44
Rach3 said:
What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H
 
  • #45
Hootenanny said:
Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Hootenanny said:
It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H

That's what I did, you may have misread. Relativity extends Newtonian mechanics, which is recovered as c->infinity.
 
  • #47
Or, as ID'ers would call it... Newtonism. :smile:
 
  • #48
Rach3 said:
What trap? :devil: Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.
 
  • #49
Pengwuino said:
:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Then I'm afraid you haven't made your point clear at all. What are you thinking about, gravity? Photons? EPR paradox? In each case (GR, QM), there is a limit in which purely classical behavior is recovered - the only regime which was experimentally accessible before then.
 
  • #50
Pengwuino said:
:confused: :confused: :confused: Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Exactly, GR for example completely changed our understanding of gravitation and our concept of space, time and motion.

~H
 

Similar threads

Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
Replies
14
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
Replies
9
Views
2K
Can I Share My Blog on this Science Forum?
Replies
1
Views
193
How Effective Are Virtual Poster Sessions in Online Conferences?
Replies
3
Views
1K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Why is this happening? (losing confidence in my math and science skills)
Replies
5
Views
3K
How Can Exploring Science with Friends Enhance Your Learning Experience?
Replies
11
Views
2K
What Are the Best Science-Related Activities to Do Alone in Paris?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Hello Art student interested in science
Replies
8
Views
492
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top