To Seventh Grade Science Class With You! Now!!

[jane_pippin]

Minor rant:

I'm listening to Fresh Air right now and it's about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate.

The IDers use the word "theory" as "proof" the scientists themselves don't even really believe in evolution. I'm sorry, but I passed seventh grade science class. I even kind of remember it--shocking, I know. Anyway, I remember my teacher explaining on the FIRST DAY that science terms have specific meanings. I remember him explaining the differences among labels like "hypothesis" "theory" and "law" as they are used in the field. We had to write short essays on them, in fact.
He said that "law" is used fairly rarely as in science there is always the chance something new could be learned that could change the understanding. We have a "law" of gravity because it has been proved over and over and over again. We have a "theory" of evolution because it cannot be proved without a doubt nor can it be recreated in an experiment, but for it to even be accepted as a "theory" (as opposed to "hypothesis"), it has to undergo rigorous testing and exploration.

I know. For those of you who are science folks and/or were awake for seventh grade life science class, this is nothing new to you. I needed to get this out of my system because every time I hear this line of bullshit, "it's just a theory," I'm reliving seventh grade science and I'd really prefer not to as middle school sucked and I'm trying to block it out, mmmkay?

I just don't get how this became a real debate when the terms of the debate aren't even being used properly by people in the debate. Scientists, I feel your pain. (I understand wanting to explore how we got here from multiple perspectives, but all I'm saying is science has specific criteria and it's irresponsible to bandy about terms without knowing their meaning.)


:rant:

[TimeChaser]

1. If someone pulls the "just a theory" shit with me

I stop the debate right there, tell them to educate themselves, and come back and talk to me when they have any idea what they're talking about.

[jane_pippin]

2. Yep. I just don't understand how it's treated as

an actual scientific debate on national news/radio programs. It's mind boggling to me.

[WCGreen]

3. Well Jeezz isn't intelligent design something like a

sub hypothesis...

I mean you can't even devise an experiment to test any part of it...

From my understanding, an hypothesis has to be testable to be considered valid...

[yewberry]

4. I think it's considered a construct

...a nontestable statement to account for a set of observations.

[WCGreen]

8. I missed that day...

[WindRavenX]

5. ID is crap

Utter, utter crap. It should not be given a second of time to mention in a science class.
It's untestable; no hypothesis can be developed.

[Shadowen]

6. Actually, regarding laws.

A law is something that has been proven mathematically.

Which is why it's so damn ironclad.

[jane_pippin]

7. Ahhh. Thanks for the clarification.

(I guess I napped once in a while after all.) ;)