:
|
That is also Science. Science tries to take something we don't understand and make us understand it, and in the case of quantum mechanics or "advanced [blank] [blank] of [blank]" we never will understand it.
As for ID vs. Evo.
...they're both theories. ID is a lot less scientificaly sound, but Evo hasn't {and possibly can't} be proven scientificaly {ID can almost be disproven scientificaly; that's how unsound it is}.
Now, there's also a subtle difference between "teaching ID" and "telling people God created everything". ID has a right to be in text-books. It does not have any right to be called "the truth" or "what happened". I don't know the fine detailes of what happened in the states, but from doing 1 year of biology I know that questions on the origion of life are always left open and any theory that is accepted can be given as an answer {whether it's lightning, a meteor, or probably ID.}
|
Oh dear. You are stepping in quicksand that won't let go. You have been taken in by classic misconceptions, and also basic flaws of educational systems everywhere, which is not your fault.
ID has the right ot be in textbooks. It does not have any right to be in science class or textbooks, as science has no room for supernatural "explainations". It is strictly evidence based. Of course, it is open for debate and changes with the evidence, so it is theoretically possible that God can become science should prove be found of His existance. However, by definition he can't, as God cannot be scientifically proved or disproved, proof denies faith ergo proof of God is proof against God yada yada yada.
One year of Biology is not going to give you any real insights or understanding of evolution (which, btw, does not include hypotheses on the origin of life, though many ideas are mutually dependant). New discoveries take so long to trickle into mainstream education, Biology in schools is now 30 years old, and while it provides the basic principles, it is now known that all the details taught in school are wrong.
:
|
"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 facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
|
Theory in the scientific meaning is is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation. The common usage is misleading, and comes closer to
hypothesis
:
Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories. Fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. Fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge; how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is.
In this scientific sense, "facts" are what theories attempt to explain. So, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship; for example, it is a "fact" that an apple will fall to the ground if it becomes dislodged from a branch and the "theory" which explains this is the current theory of gravitation. In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution".
|
It is true that ID is on shakier ground than Tokyo city on a bad day, and this largely comes down to starting with an idea and trying to prove it, which is completely the oppostite way that science operates, and failing to find conclusive evidence, attempts to draw holes in the opposing theories (unfortunately for all involved, drawing attention to gaps long since patched up, and common misconceptions)
There is plenty of concrete evidence for the current conglomerate of theories, facts, priciples and explainations known commonly as Evolution, but it would take too many lifetimes now to learn it all (too many= >1)
When being educated in such ideas, people enter a phase in deveolpment when they are no longer receptive to new ideas, so trying to convince anyone towards a diffrent way of thinking is usually a fools errand.
Quantum physics? Science was made to attempt to understand the way the universe works. It was began when it was beleive that the universe had an understandable order and purpose, and at first discoveries did just that. But in modern times we are learning that the universe is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine, and so the "understanding" (if such a word can still be applied) of it has grown incredibly complex, so no one can hope to grasp the Entire Concept of the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash we call the universe.
The best you can do is hope that you will some day understand the front line of your respective discipline.
