He's obviously using the "big media" argument that's a favourite of both the left and right (usally the loony varieties) in an scientific context. Clever.


So will questioning gravity, or DNA, or a number of other theories. There's nothing strange about that.

I can't wait to watch this for the entertainment value though. And yes, Michael Moore worship and leftist indoctrination in the social sciences sucks too.

Some people really need to read up on what theory means in the scientific world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory





A scientific theory is not just untested guess work, no matter what YEC would have you believe.

There needs to be levels of theory to be clear for less intelligent common folk. Science enjoys hiding behind the word theory especially with some of their more absurd guesses. Theory Level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4... etc.. The higher the level the more absurd it becomes. Humans evolving from apelike creatures would be quite high on the absurdity level, whereas the theory about gravity may be around a level 2.

The point being a theory, is still a guess, regardless how great it may sound or equate on paper. And theories that are debunked would still be theories, just a higher level of theory.

This whole thing is really beyond silly. Would these ID/YEC people support a christian pastor who taught that atheism, islam, buddhism or whatever were viable alternatives to christianity? Of course not, they'd throw him out on his ass (and probably condemn him to eternal hellfire in the process).

The only difference between that and the science community dismissing YEC'ers is that the former is done on the basis of faith and/or dogma, while the latter is done on the basis of the scientific method.

No, a hypothesis is as close as to what you describe. A theory is tested over and over again. A theory can certainly be modified, but to say it is "guess work" is highly inaccurate.



To debunk something that can be called a scientifc theory would be a Big Deal. You're using the word as what fits a hypothesis, not a theory.

This is why ID/Creationism isn't allowed in the science classroom. They use theory in a non-scientific fashion and dilute our pool of intelligence.

See my post above: Doubt and disproof is the major engine of science. Anyone without doubt about what they're working on isn't properly doing their job as a scientist.



People don't get usually expelled from the scientific fold.

Its a more complicated process:
1. You don't get paid if your employer doesn't think you're doing worthwhile work
2. You don't usually get research grants for work that the people giving the grant thinks is a waste of time (eg. attempting to prove apples are intelligent and can hear people, attempting to prove the earth is flat)
3. Being out of date (not reading up on new discoveries etc.) in your discipline is normally a bad idea for your career
4. Repeatedly refusing to accept that an idea has been disproved can lead people to view you as very stubborn at best and a bit of a nutcake at worst
5. Using you're position to push an agenda (especially in areas you aren't knowledgeable in - academic freedom protects you in your own field, not other peoples') can get you in trouble
6. Lying about other scientists actions (or other peoples actions) can get you fired (or at least make them dislike you)

So people can lose their jobs (for mundane reasons), not be promoted, not be published, not be taken seriously, become socially marginalised etc.



Well, there are "posits/hypothesis", "theories" and "laws" - so thats three levels for you:
- A hypothesis, is indeed, an educated guess (ie. an explanation based on observations)
- A scientific theory has the ability to (at least partially) predict results before they are obtained and doesn't have internal contradictions or contradictions with other results
- A scientific law is a set of observations that most (99%) of people in the relevant part of the natural sciences accept as being likely to be correct

The parts of evolutionary theory that are now being debated in the press are going to be upgraded to a "scientific law" in the biology community in the next few years. There are a number of other areas of the theory and other relevant theories which need another century or two of work though (no one talks about these for some reason).

Anyway, you can see how scientists use the word theory, and if you really consider it, how incredibly hard it is for a theory to meet the criteria put on it.

About gravity:
Gravity is really high on the absurdity level. Here you have a "scientific law" that lacks a "scientific theory". How does gravity work? Where does it come from?
Essential answer to date: It's a magical force with no explanation.

If you compare this to the idea that two almost identical species (eg. humans and chimps) (genetically and structurally) are actually relatives (already a reasonable idea) and when:
- you back up this idea with observations that show natural selection does work (YECs accept this - just not speciation events).
- you have documented at least one mechanism which would cause speciation (splitting of a chromosome).
- you demonstrate the cellular mechanic & genetic feasibility of this proposed mechanism

...then it looks much less absurd than Gravity does...

Hmmm... naw... no. Humans evolving from apes still looks pretty absurd.

BTW, I wonder if science has established which race is least evolved? Being that it appears to almost be accepted as scientiic law as stated above, I wonder who is willing to step out on a limb and bring forth the evidence. Or is this too touchy a subject withheld only for the private converstions among the scientific elite?

Where is this stated?

Look at PanzerMeyer's post above: No one proposes humans came from Apes. Even in Darwin's day the better scientists (including old D) didn't believe humans evolved from Apes but that both Apes and Humans have the same ancestor.

As for the concept of "race" it has been much study in the sciences. It has also been very publicly discussed. In my experience most scientists like discussing their work with anyone who will listen, the only subjects discussed by "an elite behind closed doors" are those so boring to most people that they never bother looking inside the room.

The most recent conclusions are:
- Races are based on superficial outward appearances (eg. skin colour) not the subtleties of actual genetics and physiology. It is essentially a social idea and not a scientifically valid one
- All humans are very similar to each other genetically. There is actually more diversity inside of a "race" than between "races"
- As with modern evolutionary theory, there is no "universal progress to higher forms" in evolution. No race can be more advanced than another, just as humans, squids, lettuce and algae are all equally evolved in "the eyes of evolution".
- To further make this point one could say that any species that has to evolve isn't doing well as a species that doesn't evolve (as the first species is suffering natural selection, while the second species is already well adapted). So, if being "least evolved" is taken in this light it would be a high compliment.

For what has replaced the concept of "race" see the terms "Polymorphism", "Deme" and "gene flow" as used in evolutionary biology.

Minor caveats:
- Different family groups and ethnicities do have some genes which are different (sometimes adapting them to an environment, sometimes just due to drift) but these blend with each other with some genes spreading faster than others and in effect producing millions of "races"
- I will point out that paleo-anthropologists are notorious for committing items 4, 5 and 6 of my list "of things that can do in your career" above. They aren't models of good scientists.
- Racist doctrines long predate evolutionary theory and a lot of 19th century "social darwinism" actually goes against the logic of evolutionary theory

S!

In my Book Of Common Sense. If you need a copy gimme your email and I'll send it to ya.