• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Modest Proposal

Madalch said:
No. A law is an observed, general fact. The law of conservation of energy (energy is conserved), the law of gravity (mass attracts mass according to this equation), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy increases), etc. A theory is a framework for explaining such facts. The theory of evolution explains how species change and diverge. The oxygen theory of combustion explains how fire occurs. The atomic theory of matter explains most chemistry.

There are no theories that explain -why- entropy increases or -why- energy is conserved. They just do.
Click to expand...

A good point. Yet, isn't evolution a process whereby through repeated adaptations to changing environments simplicity leads to greater complexity? That strikes me as a potential law. The early universe evolved from pretty much hydrogen and helium into the periodic table we see today. From a hot, orderly state to one of increasing entropy. In fact, as a result of our evolution we now create elements that we do not see in nature.

Yes, there may be a framework by which we use theory to explain how stars and living things and computer programs, etc. evolve over time. But generally, I don't think the process reverses itself overall and is an ongoing phenomenon.
 
Ladewig said:
Anyone who is as "casually engaged" as that is not really going to be swayed by the use of the word "law." Such people have so little understanding of how science works, that they will not come to the conclusion that evolution is widely and firmly founded on facts, they will instead conclude that scientists use the word law too easily.
Click to expand...

But that's just my point - the casually engaged will be swayed by the use of words such as "law" or "principle," precisely because they don't put much thought into it.

They vaguely remember something from high school physics about "Newton's Laws," and understand them in a dim context as something absolutely true, engraved in stone - they're laws, after all. But they read a headline about "Church group challenges teaching of theory of evolution," and think, "Well, it's only a theory. Why should kids have to learn it if it's only a theory? Shouldn't we wait until it's proved?"
 
Elizabeth I said:
I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts? :D
Click to expand...

You would be amazed at how fast even creationists can learn. If what you propose would happen it would sink in that scientific law by no means means 100% proof in next to no time.
 
I thought that the word "Theory" of Evolution is used by biologists to emphasize the humility of the scientific method, (we might be wrong) as compared to the pomposity of statements based on beliefs/faith. Any change at this stage might be viewed as undermining this honesty and openness of the scientific method.
 
I would like to point out that the word "evolution" has been co-opted by the biologists to mean "organic evolution". Evolution is a term that was around long before Darwin. It just means "change over time". The universe evolves, strategies evolve, EVERYTHING evolves, so in that sense, evolution actually is a universal law.

And the correlary is, "The more a think is able to remain unchanged, either by longevity or making accurate copies of itself, the more likely you are to find one". This is true whether you are talking about suns or strands of DNA.
 
Elizabeth I said:
But that's just my point - the casually engaged will be swayed by the use of words such as "law" or "principle," precisely because they don't put much thought into it.

They vaguely remember something from high school physics about "Newton's Laws," and understand them in a dim context as something absolutely true, engraved in stone - they're laws, after all. But they read a headline about "Church group challenges teaching of theory of evolution," and think, "Well, it's only a theory. Why should kids have to learn it if it's only a theory? Shouldn't we wait until it's proved?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see people with so little knowledge in science merely accepting something because it is named a law. I guess it will never amount to more than an internet argument because it is not going to be changed in the way you suggest.
 
Tricky said:
I would like to point out that the word "evolution" has been co-opted by the biologists to mean "organic evolution". Evolution is a term that was around long before Darwin. It just means "change over time". The universe evolves, strategies evolve, EVERYTHING evolves, so in that sense, evolution actually is a universal law.

And the correlary is, "The more a think is able to remain unchanged, either by longevity or making accurate copies of itself, the more likely you are to find one". This is true whether you are talking about suns or strands of DNA.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a law because it is an umbrella term describing change throughout all physical systems (macro I suppose)? If so, then I think this makes sense saying evolution is a law.
 
Elizabeth I said:
I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts? :D
Click to expand...
Responding only to this part: Theories (in science) do not become laws and vice versa. Theories are explanations ( The Theory of Evolution is called that because we know how Evolution Works and the Theory explains how it works). A Law states what has been observed to occur over and over by lots of capable observers - and is often a mathematical formula in reality. We do not yet know how Gravity works - but, when we do we will have both a Law of Gravity AND a Theory of Gravity. And, if we can condense Evolution into a single formula or so, we wil have both a Law and a Theory of Evolution.:)
 
Elizabeth I said:
I've been thinking about the creationist dismissal of evolution with "It's only a theory," conflating hypothesis with the scientific meaning of theory.

I think the crux of the problem is that evolution was first introduced to the general public as a theory (in the scientific sense) and has been called the "theory of evolution," allowing the dishonest conflation to take place.

The people who point out that gravity is, technically, also "only a theory" have gotten close to a potential solution, but not gone all the way.

Gravity is called a "law" - the "law of gravity" - and Newton's other formulations are also called "laws" or "principles."

We need to start calling it the "principle" or "law" of evolution.

Thoughts? :D
Click to expand...


The confusion is frustrating. I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure distilling the general facts of evolution into a law (offspring(well-adapted) > offspring(maladapted), or somesuch) would help much. There would still be the general confusion between types of laws: logical, natural, moral, legal, et al.

Science regards nature as a system: simply by existing nature has natural laws, as a subset of all possible logical laws (describing all possible systems). So a law of evolution could be considered a 'logical' law that describes nature.

However, lots of people don't understand logic very well; how laws can exist 'potentially' (within a set of all possible laws and worlds), by definition. They hear "law" and immediately think of artificial laws: courts, rules and judges; that "law" implies lawmaker. Creationists of course would hear "law" of evolution and claim it means someone (God) must have made the law and must exist to enforce the law; that any "law" is arbitrary, so really God could just as easily choose to make creationist "law" true as evolution; etc. More ignorance, more rhetoric, more confusion.

I appreciate the desire to make evolution sound like more than "just a theory" to the unscientific; but "law", unfortunately, is liable to misunderstandings of its own. (Sometimes I agree with the dry ol' logical positivists: we really do need a new language to clear up all our misunderstandings about language.)
 
I have heard Dawkins say that evolution is "not just a theory," it's a "fact." He may have put it a bit more eloquently, but he did use the word "fact."

Maybe even just changing the phrasing to "teaching the facts of evolution," versus "the theory" would help the casual listener not to form the wrong impression.
 
ExMinister said:
I have heard Dawkins say that evolution is "not just a theory," it's a "fact." He may have put it a bit more eloquently, but he did use the word "fact."

Maybe even just changing the phrasing to "teaching the facts of evolution," versus "the theory" would help the casual listener not to form the wrong impression.
Click to expand...

I think you have hit on a much more usable idea than my original proposal.

Thanks!
 
There is the fact of evolution and a Theory of Natural Selection which explains the fact of evolution. If the fact of evolution were conveyed in a mathematical formula it would be reasonable to call it a law.

The best place to start is to stop referring to the Theory of Evolution, as there is no such thing. ;)

Linda
 
Last edited:
blobru said:
However, lots of people don't understand logic very well; how laws can exist 'potentially' (within a set of all possible laws and worlds), by definition. They hear "law" and immediately think of artificial laws: courts, rules and judges; that "law" implies lawmaker. Creationists of course would hear "law" of evolution and claim it means someone (God) must have made the law and must exist to enforce the law; that any "law" is arbitrary, so really God could just as easily choose to make creationist "law" true as evolution; etc. More ignorance, more rhetoric, more confusion.
Click to expand...

When it comes to science, show me law that opposes gravity. Or the conservation of energy. You can have opposing theories, but when it comes to a law, that's it. It is constant, is always observable, and set in stone so to speak.

A law of evolution, that simple states through adaption to change graduate to more complex states, happens throughout nature. That's it. There is no alternative to it. None has been observed, tested, measured in any way whatsoever. There is no other law that contradicts it and should be stated as such.

ETA: This might also clear up some of the fuzzy thinking among the general public. Most of them only think evolution applies to living things when it is broader than that. This would provide the explanation of how there is no ID going on anywhere in nature, that instead a random process works without the help of any outside force. It might help educate the public on science in general if this was put into place.
 
Last edited:
Chucky said:
A law of evolution, that simple states through adaption to change graduate to more complex states, happens throughout nature.
Click to expand...

"Through adaptation" is part of the Theory of Natural Selection, not the 'law' of evolution. The states are different, not necessarily more complex (though they often are).

Linda
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you think people with an irrational agenda can be diverted by the use of the word "law", try arguing with a Freeman On The Land for a bit. My thought is that we should express the ideas of science in the language of science and use the definitions therein correctly, rather than use that language inappropriately in a futile attempt to forestall the equivocation of delusional idiots.

Dave
Click to expand...

You see, this is what the creationists are on about. They are delusional idiots for believing in a God to other delusional idiots who believe in science and probably don't even know how to define 'god.' Meanwhile, science, which can't test the supernatural and the theory of evolution which is constantly changing and correcting itself is considered not as a law or principle but as facts. "God can't exist because science has evolution and we choose science over that which we don't understand."

Deluded idiots call evolution unmistakable fact and the Bible superstitious nonsense.
 
You see, this is what the creationists are on about. They are delusional idiots for believing in a God to other delusional idiots who believe in science and probably don't even know how to define 'god.' Meanwhile, science, which can't test the supernatural and the theory of evolution which is constantly changing and correcting itself is considered not as a law or principle but as facts. "God can't exist because science has evolution and we choose science over that which we don't understand."

Deluded idiots call evolution unmistakable fact and the Bible superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're not allowed in my thread. Go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom