Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[JonyDarko]

What you describe Z, sounds more like Abiogenesis then evolution which is a completely separate theory. Both theories however have MUCH more evidence then any form of creationism "which would not be hard since there is none". Try to remember a scientific theory is a body of facts not a hypothesis, and abiogenesis is not evolution. Both of which are commonly mistaken.

[steven lloyd]

Try to remember a scientific theory is a body of facts not a hypothesis, and abiogenesis is not evolution.

Hmmm. I guess not all biological scientists would agree with that. Interesting stuff though:

http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes, and is taught as a regular component of evolutionary biology. The evidence to support a spontaneous origin of life is nonexistent, but like evolution itself is taught as absolute fact in biology classes.

Evolution is an attempt to offer a naturalistic explanation for the existence of our complex ecosystem. On creation vs. evolution debate forums, evolutionists frequently claim that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This debate tactic is simply used to avoid the issue because it has never been proven despite repeated attempts under every conceivable circumstance. Every college level course on evolution will address abiogenesis at length, as will any evolutionary biology textbook.

Spontaneous generation was the original theory that proposed life could originate from nonliving matter. It is now well known that spontaneously generate of life in our present ecosystem is impossible.

All recognized life forms are produced by preexisting organisms known as biogenesis, and the scientific community can not demonstrate abiogenesis under any conceivable conditions. Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present.

[sooperphreek]

im amazed that the evolution theory can be deemed a fact. were you there 400000000 years ago? if your answer is no then youd have to have as much faith or more as a creationist to believe that the thesis is a fact. science is about ideas and discussion of possibilities and of what abouts? the idea of creationism is getting its fair share of camera time now and it is being discussed. i think that if you took the 2 ideas and shook them up together youd have a closer representaion of the truth than the two opposing ideals.

[JonyDarko]

First off, find me an actual science journal or other reliable page. Abiogenesis is not as solid as evolution but it sure as hell has less holes then the supernatural and you know it. Secondly Evolution is not taught as fact, its taught as a body of facts because that is what it is.

Sooper, Science is not about combining two things and shaking them up. Nor is it about Sharing ideas, that sounds more like some hippy cafe then a laboratory. Its about Scientific method, finding the truth, and supporting that truth with evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I am guaranteeing you that I can show you more evidence for either of those theories then you can for creationism. Because hokus pokus tends not to be provable.

Also, you do not have to go back to the dawn of life on this planet to have proof of evolution.

Sp. K172

[JLives]

im amazed that the evolution theory can be deemed a fact. were you there 400000000 years ago? if your answer is no then youd have to have as much faith or more as a creationist to believe that the thesis is a fact. science is about ideas and discussion of possibilities and of what abouts? the idea of creationism is getting its fair share of camera time now and it is being discussed. i think that if you took the 2 ideas and shook them up together youd have a closer representaion of the truth than the two opposing ideals.

Sooper I think you're getting evolution confused with the big bang theory. Evolution has nothing to do with how the world started but how it developed after the fact. It is still happening in the present day, so yes I was there. Evolution is not a belief and anyone who's representing science in our government should know that.

[sooperphreek]

as is my right.....just like it is of the last 2 posters. i will disagree. and the condasending attitude that they have of being absolutely "right" is a little bit disturbing. one says that they can base everything as a fact through science professionals and journals. if having a PHD in science is the benchmark of gospel truths then what about the theologists that have one too? if the use of a science journal is a benchmark then why not a book thousands of years older than any science journal and use the bible? therefore the discussion is not a simple matter of a case closed just because of those statements. and the other says that they have a leg to stand on because of modern examples of adaptation to our environment. its like the scientists and the sheep in society have come to the place where they believe the theories are gospel truth. but that seems to go against what science is all about in my opinion. because with every new discovery the rules change and facts change. so i wonder how it is that things can be a fact if they constantly change or are adapted? i didnt know that facts could be changed. just because we are adapting to our evironment doesnt mean we came from gelatinus goo a zillion years ago. and it doesnt mean that we are desendants from monkeys either. if we are desendants of monkeys why did they survive and not just diassapear like neanderthals did? humans are the genetic perfection of our species. arent we? our proliferation wiped out the neanderthals in the science history books right? so why not the monkeys? and if we are from monkeys why are we taking a step back in modern history and are desendants of animals instead of a line of human like people like the neaderthals? we evolved so why dont the monkeys? the questions can go on and on and on. just like the questions people have about religious faith. and people can quote a scientific journal and a scientist and thump it as a fact but it makes it no less concrete than a bible thumpers rebuttals from the bible. its all in where your faith lies. so the fact that we have a science minister who has faith makes no difference to me because i think its good to have a broader view of what science is or can be. perhaps he wont be so closed minded as to continue the status quo of what ridgid scientists who say the world is flat (metaphorically) and we can have a more rounded view of what science can be.

[zzontar]

So if you believe evolution happens with existing or proven to have existed species (It's hard not to when there's so much proof) but you don't believe that life on Earth evolved from the primeval soup, does this mean you believe in evolution or not?

[JLives]

as is my right.....just like it is of the last 2 posters. i will disagree. and the condasending attitude that they have of being absolutely "right" is a little bit disturbing. one says that they can base everything as a fact through science professionals and journals. if having a PHD in science is the benchmark of gospel truths then what about the theologists that have one too? if the use of a science journal is a benchmark then why not a book thousands of years older than any science journal and use the bible? therefore the discussion is not a simple matter of a case closed just because of those statements. and the other says that they have a leg to stand on because of modern examples of adaptation to our environment. its like the scientists and the sheep in society have come to the place where they believe the theories are gospel truth. but that seems to go against what science is all about in my opinion. because with every new discovery the rules change and facts change. so i wonder how it is that things can be a fact if they constantly change or are adapted? i didnt know that facts could be changed.

As soon as the bible is submitted to the scientific method and through peer review the conclusion shows it is fact then we will use the bible for science. Until then it remains philosophy. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right.

Facts don't just change on a whim, they are adjusted if new evidence presents itself or if the method used to find the fact was flawed when discovered through peer review. As our technology and knowledge increase we discover more and more.

just because we are adapting to our evironment doesnt mean we came from gelatinus goo a zillion years ago. and it doesnt mean that we are desendants from monkeys either. if we are desendants of monkeys why did they survive and not just diassapear like neanderthals did? humans are the genetic perfection of our species. arent we? our proliferation wiped out the neanderthals in the science history books right? so why not the monkeys? and if we are from monkeys why are we taking a step back in modern history and are desendants of animals instead of a line of human like people like the neaderthals? we evolved so why dont the monkeys?

We didn't evolve FROM monkeys. Monkeys, apes and humans evolved from a now extinct common ancestor. Whales and cows evolved from a common ancestor too. Modern whales still have hip bones. Evolution is adaption to your environment as efficiently as possible. All species need to be efficient in our basic common needs which are food and reproduction and we meet these needs in different ways.

humans are the genetic perfection of our species. arent we?

No, but we like to think we are.

[zzontar]

Here's another question... if you found the bones of species "A" and the bones of species "Z", with "A" being the oldest, and you found a smooth transition of sleletons B through Y which clearly showed A had become Z, would this be conclusive scientific proof that Z had evolved from A?

[Tumult]

As soon as the bible is submitted to the scientific method and through peer review the conclusion shows it is fact then we will use the bible for science. Until then it remains philosophy. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right.

The bible was peer reviewed by the Nicean(sp?) council in the 4th century.... For all it's touted, peer review is not fool proof.

Facts don't just change on a whim, they are adjusted if new evidence presents itself or if the method used to find the fact was flawed when discovered through peer review. As our technology and knowledge increase we discover more and more.

This reminds me of the Jehovah Witness' reaction to failed prophecy..."the light gets brighter" as they "discover" more and more.

[JLives]

The Nicaean Council was hardly an unbiased source. 4th century huh, let's try it in the 21st and see what the conclusion is

[Glacier]

Here's another question... if you found the bones of species "A" and the bones of species "Z", with "A" being the oldest, and you found a smooth transition of sleletons B through Y which clearly showed A had become Z, would this be conclusive scientific proof that Z had evolved from A?

It would be evidence of such, but which species are you talking about where this has been the case?

[zzontar]

Here's another question... if you found the bones of species "A" and the bones of species "Z", with "A" being the oldest, and you found a smooth transition of sleletons B through Y which clearly showed A had become Z, would this be conclusive scientific proof that Z had evolved from A?

It would be evidence of such, but which species are you talking about where this has been the case?

I don't see what difference species would make, I'm just saying if they could prove A had done the progression to Z would you consider that proof of evolution?

[steven lloyd]

Here's another question... if you found the bones of species "A" and the bones of species "Z", with "A" being the oldest, and you found a smooth transition of sleletons B through Y which clearly showed A had become Z, would this be conclusive scientific proof that Z had evolved from A?

It would be evidence of such, but which species are you talking about where this has been the case?

I don't see what difference species would make, I'm just saying if they could prove A had done the progression to Z would you consider that proof of evolution?

I think that to repeat what Glacier had written, it would be evidence that Z had evolved from A. Perhaps, if enough bones had been discovered it would even be strong evidence. That is not the same thing as proof though. I believe proof would require that it be tested (ie. repeated under laboratory conditions) and that is not likely. Still wouldn’t mean the theory wasn’t true though. Just unprovable (although strongly supported by the evidence).

[zzontar]

Here's my next question... did a toy poodle evolve from a wolf?