[i]Yes, it was when it was being invented.

No, the theory was that a certain organism could achieve something useful. The organism iteslef is an organism, not a theory.[/i]

Yea, yea, yea, and this was that and that was this. That was assumed.

[i]And it being a theory it should be taught in science

ID is also a theory. Does that mean it should be taught in science?[/quote] [/i]

There is more eveidence of the the evolution theory then there is in
intelligent design. So  I don't think it should if so then why not creation also?

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 9:26am:

Cultural factors? Narrative? Human history? The relevance of this is....what? You didn't just miss the mark here freediver, you turned around and shot in the opposite direction! The author makes the distinction...and you completely missed it.

What cultural factors are relevant when you are digging up bones, counting their number and arrangement, measuring for size and then classifying species based on these observations? Evidence laid out millions of years ago, but often only thousands or hundreds. What cultural factors are relevant when you dig up rocks, analyze their composition, water content, geographic location then postulate scientific theories on how they were created? Evidence laid out millions of years ago, but often only thousands or hundreds. What cultural factors and narrative are relevant to the study of photos cast out from stars billions of years ago that have only just reached our earth? This is the empirical study of history and is relevant to many areas of science.

You see now freediver you have confused the distinction between the natural and the human. Yes, you cannot scientifically study the narrative, the culture, the human perspective of history, but evolution makes no attempt at this, please enlighten me as to where it does if you disagree? There is a clear cut distinction between human history and natural history. natural can be studied with science and is every day in the areas of geology, climate science, evolution, astrology and many many more.

There is nothing different about the construction of theories of evolution and the construction of theories of geology, or the construction of theories of climate change. All of them make attempts to empirically study what is found buried in the earth as remnants of the past, then compare this data to current day observations and postulate theories based on this scientific study.

How do you do repeated controlled experiment on the formation of rocks when the geological cycles that create then last eons and exist under forces that humans cannot replicate? How do you do repeated controlled experiment on what is happening at stars, quasars, nebulae and black holes billions of light years away from us? How do you do repeated controlled experiment on ice cores that formed millions of years ago? There are ways freediver, but they employ scientific methods that differ to what it is you think science is. The thing is the scientific community regards these methods as scientific. You do not... hmm, let me think here...

The thing is, once you limit the definition of science, you have no valid reason for keeping a whole heap of other obviously scientific theories...

Newsflash freediver, evolution is regarded as a scientific theory by the community and the quality of scientific study has not been compromised by it, quite the contrary.

And I'm still waiting for some evidence of a scientist who agrees with you about evolution?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 6:07pm:


It's natural history because nature is involved. lol

To the question topic asked: Are maths and science the same thing? NO

Maths are absolute and science is not.

Culture factors and nasty prejudices?? I'm confused must be getting mystical. lol

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 6:07pm:

...when dealing with cultural factors, narrative and human history yes you would be correct. But that is not the topic of debate.

When dealing with nature alone, history can be studied scientifically and is...repeatedly...every day...by scientists.

When a geologist tells you Australia separated from Antarctica 120 million years ago, do you think that is based in non scientific study? Because that is a scientific theory of what happened in the past.

When you are told how old the earth is, the sun, the stars and the universe, do you think these concepts are based in non scientific study? Because these are again scientific theories of what happened in the past

Natural history is just another way of describing a type of scientific study.

Quote:

Geology, astrology, climate science, natural selection (ie evolution). And many more that I could dig up if it was worth wasting my time. But it isn't, you are obviously too ignorant to recognise what is science and what is not.

When dealing with nature alone, history can be studied scientifically and is...repeatedly...every day...by scientists.

Sure, scientists also read the paper. They don't do it scientifically. Just because a 'scientist' does something doesn't make it scientific. Again, you missed the whole point. Jay basically said that history is not science because it isn't based on repeatable experiment. Just like evolution. The pitfalls he describes for people studying human history also apply to people studying natural history.

When a geologist tells you Australia separated from Antarctica 120 million years ago, do you think that is based in non scientific study?

Sure, it's a question of history. I'm sure the theories it is based on are scientific though. Most of them anyway. Tell me, when you put your dinner in the microwave are you doing science, or just taking advantage of knowledge and technology gained through the scientific method?

Geology, astrology, climate science, natural selection (ie evolution).

Go back and read the comment I was responding to. Geology is not a theory. Astrology  is not a theory. Climate change is (depending on how you interpret it, you are very vague) and it is scientific. Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution isn't. List the theories. Not the fields of study. It is by grouping too many theories in the one basket that certain people try to pass off non-scientific theories as scientific. It is a logical fallacy, trying to generalise to the point of ambiguity so the question becomes meaningless.

natural history is studied in scientific ways

No it isn't. It is studied using the methods employed by historians.

well you can't separate natural selection from evolution buddy

Yes you can. It is quite easy.

So, got any evidence of a scientist that agrees with you yet.

Of course they agree with me. Let's start with wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.

Hmm, sorry mate, last I checked wikipedia was not a scientist, neither is that article about a scientist.

Right, but it would be pretty absurd to argue that not a single scientist agrees with wikipedia's defnition of science. Maybe they just haven't noticed it yet?

Evolution meets the requirements of scientific method

Which requirements? You keep switching between arguing that my definition of science is wrong and that evolution is falsifiable.

But lets just forget evolution for a second and go back to biology, when a biologist digs up a fossil, uses geological methods to determine its age, then measures properties of that fossil and classifies it according to standard biological methods, he is studying history according to the scientific method.

No, he is studying history using 'historical' methods. You cannot argue that when a historian does that with an old parchment it is a different method to when a biologist does it with a bone.

He may then go on to construct a theory that other examples of this species are likely to be found in areas surrounding his location in similar geological situations.

Sure, but it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

Where is the narrative? The human story?

I didn't say there was one. You are ignoring the relevant part of the quote. I even put it in bold for you in case you missed it. When you asked for a scientists who agreed with me, I didn't think you would insist on one who parroted me word for word.

This is an example of scientific method as it is applied daily, all over the globe, by scientists, to the area of natural history.

I think this would get resolved a lot quicker if you would follow up on some of the details rather than switching back to the broad statements all the time.

Quote:


Oh isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...This issue will be resolved when you acknowledge that you fly in the face of the scientific community. You are wrong, and while I know you have confessed you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong, so really this is pointless, I am challenging your argument in the public arena...for me that is enough (not that your ideas have any following that needs to be put down).

The thing is freediver, for many years now I have been a very close follower of developments in science, science news, current theory, historical theory and the general history and development of science and technology. I have a subscription to new scientist, I read as many different science news websites as I can find, and have done for years, and I take the time to read up on scientific methods, theories and technological developments that arise out of them. I have immersed myself in science since I can remember. The biggest problem with your idea on evolution is that there is no debate amongst the scientific community about the merits of evolution as a scientific theory. In fact it is rarely even regarded as a theory any more, most scientists simply call it a law of nature. There is no debate. There is some debate as to the merits of natural selection, some believe that it is not possible to apply a null hypothesis to it, but these scientists are on the fringe if that. This only further decimates your position as you are here saying the opposite. Evolution is regarded as on of the most well tested theories that has been produced, second possibly to QM, and much more well tested than relativity, which is suprisingly a poorly tested theory, although it fares well against those tests that are thrown at it. There is debate about what constitutes scientific theory, it is not as though scientists are not out there dismissing the useless theories - read up on string theory, there is strong debate going on right now as to whether it can be classed as science or not. This is not the case with evolution. Basically, if you interpret the scientific method in such a way as to come to the conclusion that evolution or indeed all aspects of history cannot be studied scientifically, then you have misinterpreted the scientific method. It is simple.

The scientific community you could say are well aware of the philosophies of the scientific method, and the vast majority of them agree that evolution fits extremely well within the bounds of rigorous scientific method. Again, there simply is no debate among scientists and you cannot bring me evidence of any (although I always knew this would be the case). So all you are saying is that all those PHD's, those researchers and philosophers who have trained in science for years on end, who bring us so many wonderful pieces of technology and medicine and so on, while they get so much right, they are wrong in this one case...and nobody but freediver is out there challenging the accepted position... right.