Comment Re:"Belief" in Evolution?! (Score 1) 772
The belief that $DIETY even CAN be factual is in itself a measure not only of science illiteracy, but outright delusion.
The belief that $DIETY even CAN be factual is in itself a measure not only of science illiteracy, but outright delusion.
but evolution does not include abiogenesis, so most people would be wrong.
you're basically saying that most people in the USA are scientifically illiterate.
unfortunately i'd have to agree.
if one does not believe in evolution than it follows necessarily that they do not understand it. (or much at all about science, for that matter.)
however, believing in evolution does not imply that one understands it.
no. the theories are not theories in the sense that you are implying. a scientific theory is something very different than the layman's meaning of theory.
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."
what you are describing when you say "but the theories remain theories" -- you are actually referring to hypothesis, not theories. and the statement is incorrect. they do not remain mere hypothesis, they get tested. rigorously. continuously.
and they never become theories. a scientific theory is a mathematical model that conforms with all observed phenomena, and makes testable predictions, thus allowing it to be proved false.
the laymen's definition of a "theory", as far as ontology goes, is below that of a scientific theory, it is below that of an observation, it is even below that of a hypothesis.
more detail available here: http://thinking-critically.com...
WOW - beg the question much? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
so you know that what you said is incorrect then. humans are animals. and so are their ancestors. (well... up to near the root of the evolutionary tree.)
so you have admitted that you were wrong. i applaud that. it takes intellectual courage to admit you are wrong.
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF! it is a lack of belief. atheists also do not believe in unicorns or faeries, either. they simply don't feel that worth mentioning.
you cannot know evolution and not believe it. not believing evolution is proof that you do not understand it, and proof that you don't understand science, either.
there are not any rational arguments against evolution, and there is no counter evidence. and there are no -- absolutely zero -- religious folks who refuse to entertain thoughts irrationally.
no, the study did not test anything related to what he said. the study was quite simply a factor analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
as you put it, it inferred the empirical statistical correlation of correct / incorrect answers.
the study showed only that the question about evolution was a relatively independent component. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
the rest of the article was the author's unfounded -- and as almost everyone in this forum has demonstrated, wrong -- inferences.
the study did not establish - at all - what is or is not part of scientific literacy.
what is or is not part of scientific literacy is established by the _philosohpy of science_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Neither. He is not talking about the findings of the study. He is talking about the author's interpretation of the findings. He is demonstrating that they are incorrect. They are incorrect. As he has demonstrated.
As to "it is quite another to stipulate that that mouse arose from a lizard by many tiny changes over eons." fortunately no part of the theory of evolution specifically mentions mice and lizards, so it is not neccessary to observe that to verify it.
However, speciation does not need eons to occur. It can happen rather quickly. Speciation of a variety of species, spanning from dogs to bacteria to fruit flies,etc. has been observed, both in the lab, and outside of it.
Invariably the reason is because they have some misconception about it, and/or an even deeper misconception about science.
belief in evolution does not indicate science literacy, but disbelief in evolution does indicate science illiteracy.
yes.
literacy _implies_ belief.
disbelief _implies_ illiteracy.
it does seem a lot more fitting.
as a programmer i have to say that that's false. belief in creationism would negatively impact your ability to write a program, as it's allowing fanciful and and unfounded thoughts to cloud rational/analytic thinking. that means your deductive, inductive, and reductive reasoning is going to be slower, more confused, and more error-prone. and that means your ability to write a program is compromised.
That may be true. But a _Science_ question that directly challenges a known tradition makes a particularly good and indicative _science_ question, esp in regard to how deeply a person knows and understands the _philosophy of science_.
Kind of like how a math problem that is counter-intuitive makes for a particularly good math problem.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
