Read closely, it's a THEORY. This does not mean that it is true. Tell them that if they believe it so much, why don't they merely make it a law? There should be no relevant reasons for that.
11 comments
It's a Theory. This means that it is AN explanation which encompasses the available facts. (Not necessarily the correct explanation in every detail, but it's the one we prefer). A Law is only attributed to something which can be demonstrated to be consistently, and without exception, repeatable. They're not the same thing, that's the relevant reason.
I have a theory that fundies actually know the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory; it's just they think laws are clearly superior.
This is because laws have several features that appeal to fundies.
1) Laws just are.
2) Laws don't provide an explanation.
3) Laws don't require an explanation to use.
4) Laws are frequently conservative.
All of which dovetail nicely with the rest of fundie beliefs.
And what about the THEORY of Gravity? Are we gonna start teaching Intelligent Falling next? I mean how else could a bowling ball fall in such a perfect line, and yet a feather flutter so gracefully? It is God's work! Repent, sinners and fools!
To reinforce what Quantum Mechanic said:
"Laws" are not more definite and more authoritative than theories. Laws are often part of theories -- and there are laws which are less accurate than theories. Newton's laws of motion, for instance, are excellent mathematical approximations within a range of sizes and speeds that fits most of our immediate experiences. On very small, very large, or very fast scales, though, we have other mathematical descriptions which fit into contemporary theories of mechanics -- which are, again, more accurate than Newton's "laws" .
I mean, consider the accelerated protons I work with in my internship. Using Newton's laws to calculate speed based on kinetic energy would lead to a 20% error -- we have to use the math derived from the theory of relativity to get an accurate value. (Yeah, "accelerated" here means "really freaking fast".) And for the really high-powered particle accelerators, the error using Newtonian mechanics can be over nine thousand percent.
"Read closely, it's a THEORY. This does not mean that it is true. Tell them that if they believe it so much, why don't they merely make it a law? There should be no relevant reasons for that."
Read closely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
Evolution = fact . Creationism (via 'Intelligent Design') = lies
This does mean that it's true. Tell Judge John E. Jones III that if he's a Conservative Christian like you Raptards are, why did he give that decision?
Why, they have made it a law! Romans 13:1-5 ensures you have absolutely no right whatsoever, never mind any relevant reason, for disputing that.
Theories and laws are separate constructs, with the fundamental difference being laws describe while theories explain.
A scientific law is statement which in a precise but limited manner describes what has always been observed to occur under specific defined circumstances, frequently expressed as a single mathematical equation. Laws are postulates, lacking complex external proofs.
Scientific theories, on the other hand, are unifying and self-consistent explanations of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that are constructed of corroborated hypotheses, and which comprehensively, predictively, and tentatively explain all observations within their scope.
So for example there are both laws of gravity (such as the inverse square law, which describes observed changes in the magnitude of gravitational attraction between objects possessing mass as the distance between them varies) as well as the theory of gravitational attraction (which explains how that attractive force results from mass distorting local space-time.)
“Read closely, it's a THEORY. This does not mean that it is true.”
It does mean it’s the best explanation we’ve yet found for all the observations made so far.
On TV, cops, lawyers, and diagnosticians use ‘theory’ right before they make a guess.
In science, scientists start with a guess, form a hypothesis, and finally, after a LOT of work, publish their theory. And get crucified in peer reveiw. if it survives that, it’s stronger than any fucking ‘guess.’
"Tell them that if they believe it so much, why don't they merely make it a law?”
What the fuck would a law of evolution look like?
A law is a claim that we can predict how matter and energy will behave in a specific situation. We cannot predict how a species will react to a change in the environment.
We’re not going to be able to say ‘if the climate drops an average of 5 degrees in a region, animals there will evolve to have snow-colored fur.’
"There should be no relevant reasons for that.”
Just science and how it actually works. No biggie. Nothing you’d be interested in.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.