More Bible-thumping idiocy as the literalists install their theorcacy

[jochhejaam]

Scientists just cringed.

A scientific law is something axiomatic, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (delta)S > 0.

A theory is more of a comprehensive model that best accomodates all the available evidence.

Evolution is one of the really strong theories, on the order of the theory of gravity. It is the foundation for pretty much all modern biology, and is only questioned in the political circles of countries with a poor understanding of the relationship between religion and science.

You may have been thinking of a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation that has not been well proven.

I understand what you're saying Stout, it's just I've always heard of evolution referred to as a theory, not a law.
So, my statement that evolution is theory and not law is incorrect?

My understanding that a theory becomes law when the proof of the theory is no longer intelligently assailable. Would that be incorrect?
(bear with me fellow posters while I receive a free education from Stout)


Just for kicks I Googled, in parenthesis, the following:

Evolution is a theory = 101,000 results (the winner)

Evolution is a law = 35,600

Evolution is a hypothesis = 34,300 results

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Iraq had been done my way, there'd be 2600 more US military alive today.
Done your way, they all wasted and dead.
Who supports and respects the military more?

Humor me, what's your way, and what's my way? Oh yeah, and before you even start talking out your ass, my way is not the Bush way.

[ducks]

my way is a nuke...
10 days warning then nuke

[Ocotillo]

The church is perfectly within it's rights to do what it did. The first amendment protects the free exercise of it. I don't agree with the church's action and I would jump to the conclusion the woman who was let go does not either.

She is free to attend another church more in tune with her personal beliefs.

[sabar]

I understand what you're saying Stout, it's just I've always heard of evolution referred to as a theory, not a law.
So, my statement that evolution is theory and not law is incorrect?

My understanding that a theory becomes law when the proof of the theory is no longer intelligently assailable. Would that be incorrect?
(bear with me fellow posters while I receive a free education from Stout)


Just for kicks I Googled, in parenthesis, the following:

Evolution is a theory = 101,000 results (the winner)

Evolution is a law = 35,600

Evolution is a hypothesis = 34,300 results

A theory in science is not a speculation or opinion. Likewise, theory and fact do not oppose eachother in scientific use, a common misconception. Theory is not proven or disproven, it is refined.

Look at these.

Cell theory. Global warming. Plate tectonics. Continential drift. Gravity. General relativity.

A hypothesis can become a law as a law requires constant observation over years with many confirmations of experiments.

What's it all mean? Your everyday person puts way too much thought into the word theory and law. Cell theory has been proven time and time again. So has global warming. So has plate tectonics. So has general relativity. And so has evolution. Basically, people need a better excuse to discredit evolution than semantics.

[Phenomanul]

Gravity doesn't belong on that list....

Extra Stout earlier referenced it as the Theory of Gravity....

But it really is known as the Law of Gravity. The only 'loose-end' is the debate over the existence, or should I say the qualification of gravitons.

Having said that of course, the Law of Gravity is part of a bigger super theory that has been the subject of much research over the past decade or so.... the 'Grand Unified Theory'.