MovieChat Forums > Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (2006) Discussion > Evolution is just a theory, but...

Evolution is just a theory, but...

posted 16 years ago by The_unemployed_cynic
12 replies | jump to latest

If you want to replace the theory of evolution, at least try to come up with another theory, preferably a better one. I would love to hear it.

Unfortunately, ID is not that better theory. It is not even a theory.

The idea that the parts of evolution theory which are not yet fully understood can be substituted by an all-powerful higher being who has created our world the way it is, is false. Even if we accept the existence of such a higher being, it only makes matters harder to explain. Where does a being capable of creating a universe out of thin air come from? Who created such a powerful entity? In other words, who or what made god?

If you fail to understand how the natural environment in which we live (with all of its endless variation and wonder) could have been formed over a period of billions of years by a very complicated process called evolution, how can you just accept the existence of a higher being capable of creating all that in a matter of days or years? Which is harder to explain, a very complicated reality, or a single, invisible and omnipotent being that is capable of single-handedly creating such a very complicated reality?

The higher being in ID is -literally- a deus ex machina, a device once used to tie up loose ends in the storyline of a stage play (nowadays we might call it 'a Hollywood ending'). It does not explain anything, it just makes the audience feel good.

I can see the attraction of a deus ex machina or Hollywood ending for the masses. It provides an easy way out, in stead of having to think about the difficult questions that a stage play or a film might pose. The same goes for ID: having to think about an explanation for everything around us, is a lot harder than saying 'god created it' and giving up on trying to explain who or what that god is and where he came from.

I don't expect everyone to choose the harder path of trying to find real explanations, but for scientists who accept ID as a serious theory, I have no respect. ID is not a theory, it is a belief, which in terms of science means a cop-out. "I will never be able to understand this, so I just give up trying and assume there are higher powers at work."

[–] kwacka2 16 years ago

What these folk fail to realise is that scientists adhere to Karl Popper's theories of falsification; you can never, ever 'prove' a theory - you can only disprove it. If you can't find any evience to disprove it that does not constitute proof - merely that, with current knowledge, the theory still holds water (until the body of knowledge moves forward and actually disproves it).

I'd like the ID mob who cite 'theory' to try holding an axe over their heads and letting go - after all Newton's & Einstein's works on gravity are only theories too.

What they do fail to realise is that there is very often a wide gap between 'faith' and 'facts' (a kid believes in Father Xmas; is this a belief or a fact?) and cite their personal beliefs as factual evidence in debate.

[–] Temsi 16 years ago

I'm getting tired of having to explain this to people, but evolution is not "just a theory", it's a scientific fact. It's as close to a slam dunk case as science has ever produced. Among the billions of pieces of evidence discovered and uncovered so far, ALL of them, every single one, points to evolution. There is not a single one that contradicts the theory.
As far as scientific theories goes, this one is the one that has been tested the most and it has weathered every single criticism and challenge. It is, for lack of a better word, perfect.

People seem to not understand the difference between the common daily usage of the word "theory" and "scientific theory".
A scientific theory is not just a hypothesis or an idea. It's a set of rules that explains real life phenomena.
To make an analogy:
Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity, only refers to how it works.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, only refers to how it works.

There is no dispute here. Evolution is a fact. ID is creationism bullsh*t.

I understand you're on the right side of this issue, I just think you shouldn't perpetuate the "eveolution is just a theory" myth put forth by the ID crowd. Saying it is, is simply incorrect.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

[–] wibblefishtree 16 years ago

The theory of gravity is just another untruth spread by liberal athiest so-called "scientists" our chldren should be taught the controversy and learn about intelligent falling as well, or do you think that angels just somehow defy this lie of gravity and are able to fly with such small wings.

You liberal tools of satan are lying to our children!

[–] Temsi 16 years ago

I'm afraid most of them won't get sarcasm...

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

[–] SeanMarshall 14 years ago

That people use sarcasm in posts is only one theory. Teach the controversy of False Sarcasmism.

[–] Temsi 14 years ago

I see what you did there... well played, sir.

-I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. -Klaatu

[–] carbonated_turtle 15 years ago

Actually I'd just like to add one thing to what you were saying Temsi. Technically it is a theory, a scientific theory. Unfortunately most people don't realize these are not the same thing. Scientific theory is based on trials and facts, whereas a theory is based on very little.

I find it a little easier to use that argument on IDiots who insist evolution is just a "theory".

[–] Temsi 15 years ago

Evolution is a fact, how it happens is a theory - a scientific theory.

In daily life, the word "theory" is thrown about as a synonym for "idea".
In science, the word "theory" is only used for the testable and demonstrable explanation of existing facts or phenomena.

I don't know how the argument can get any simpler than that.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

[–] rrpostal 14 years ago

I honestly think some otherwise semi intelligent people are thrown off by this. There's someone who uses this same argument in this movie actually. I can't really fault the common person for not understanding that a "theory" doesn't mean theory in the common sense. Of course, anyone who actually opens their maw and professes ID should definitely know better or prepare to be corrected succinctly.

[–] praxis1966-1 14 years ago

From rrpostal: "I can't really fault the common person for not understanding that a "theory" doesn't mean theory in the common sense."

Maybe you can't but I can. I learned the difference between and definitions of the words hypothesis, theory, and law and how they pertain to scientific thought in the 6th grade. I mean, if a person is clinically mentally deficient in some way it's not that person's fault if they can't tell the difference, but everyone else CAN be faulted for their inability/refusal to comprehend what every 6th grader in the freakin' country knows.

[–] SeanMarshall 14 years ago

While I somewhat agree with you I need to point out that scientists themselves add to the confusion. I've certainly see them in the media use theory what seems to me in a loose manner. New ideas which haven't had time to be tested by others, fully peer-reviewed, etcetera should never be called theory. Nor should ideas (even those with a bit of traction) be called theory when they seem inherently unfalsifiable.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]