BACK TO HOME PAGE SITE NAVIGATION CONTACT POETRY FORUM STORY FORUM   Horoscope  Radio  Gallery  FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   PM's   
Log in 
 
General Forum Index -> Articles & Essays

Intelligent design. What do you think ?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Ladies Lifestyle and Living Store
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77
Intelligent design. What do you think ?

It's been about 3 years now that the dover trial in Pennsylvania is over. The court ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in science classes, judging that the concept was religious, therefor had no place in science education.

What do you think about it ? Is intelligent design a science or is it divine creation in disguise ?

Post Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:24 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


“Is intelligent design a science or is it divine creation in disguise?”

I am glad you did not ask what I think about that judge…it could not have been viewed by the eyes of children.

The direct answer to your question is…no.

The very indirect answer is…

Intelligent design…

I absolutely believe there is something behind it all. Exactly what that is nobody can say and back up what they say with hard concrete proof and that is no different than any theory scientists postulate. Faith in ones religious/spiritual beliefs can be very strong and people can be stubborn about them just as scientists can have faith in theories. They both have something in common…or should I say a lack of something…hard concrete hold in your hands and see with your eyes unchallengeable undeniable proof but they both have faith in what they believe.

How did this magnificent universe we live in come to exist as we know it?
We have all kinds of theories and a vast array of ideas and points of view as to how we came to exist. Scientific views. Religious and spiritual views. That is what makes it so intriguing to me and what makes it so interesting to talk about.

From a scientific point of view a person can say they have empirical data or that the laws of physics have proven something scientifically but to me that is not the final answer. It only means that from a humans point of view and by scientific principles they have formed a conclusion. A person can prove scientifically the question of why a cannonball and a feather will fall at the same rate when there is no resistance acting upon them but a better question would be…why do they fall at the same rate and even that answer is rather simple…because the gravitational and inertial masses are equal for all objects and now we can ask the question again…“why”…then once we answer that question we can ask again…“why” and we can keep asking and asking and the questions will be never ending because we will never have the final answer to everything and that will always be the case and science will never be able to answer the questions regarding human origin or the origins of nature. Yes…science will and to some degree can put forth very good ideas as to how things work and why they work the way they do but science cannot and does not have all the answers as to why and in many cases when science thinks it knows something conclusively they get blindsided and find out they did not know as much as they thought they did.

For anyone to claim that evolution is how life arose is doing nothing but spreading one of the greatest lies ever told for the simple fact that it is totally incorrect. Evolution is the process that occurs AFTER life began. You must have life before you can have the evolution of life. I know there are many theories as to the origins of life and how life began but where is the proof? I know there are scientists that are on the verge of creating life. They are finding ways for atoms to assemble into molecules, and for molecules to assemble into more complicated structures. Creating all the basic elements of life. Amino acids that make proteins and the nucleotides that make DNA and so on. Eventually they will create life in the lab but what does that answer about the origins of life? To me it only says that life was created. Was it by chance or did it get a little nudge?

The laws of nature and science…scientific theories and religious/spiritual beliefs…we could discuss all of this endlessly and I would be happy to do so. Some people take a deterministic point of view by saying it is all pre-determined and we just go about life in a pre-determined order of things. Then you have people who follow the route of cause and effect (a view that believes something cannot happen without something else causing it to happen) and while in many cases this is true because things do not happen unless something else causes them to happen but by following the logic of this you are locked into an endless cycle of cause and effect and will never be able to find the root cause of the effect…but why worry about that since the deterministic side already determined that it was all pre-determined anyway.

I could go on and on but it is all leading to this…

Science is wonderful and I am fascinated by it because I love learning but I know that science does not, can not and will never have all the answers because there will always be more questions Many people love science because it is nice and tidy. They like it because the formulas work and it all fits together within the equation…or does it? Not always

So…intelligent design…it is both science and religion. I have my spiritual beliefs and while those beliefs are not based upon science that does not invalidate them just as my beliefs do not invalidate science.

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:50 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Phoenix
Moderators


Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 1664
Location: Tallahassee Florida


Eiregirl,

You explain the issues very well. I once read that from pure statistical facts, that for life to have developed on it's own and evolve into the higher life forms would be the same probability of a tornado hitting a junk yard and a 747 is formed ready to fly.

Let me pose another question to add to this discussion. Where do souls come from? For some, they say souls do not exist. That when you die, you come to a complete end. But for those of us who have experienced interaction with souls or spirits of those who have passed on there is no doubt of a higher existence, and thus a greater force at work in the creation of life. Science has already proven that an atom can exist in two places at once. This is dumbfounding to those who come from a pure scientific standpoint. I do not proclaim to be any kind of expert on quantum physics, and find it to be a fascinating field, but the more we seem to discover, the more we question certain theories, and isn't that what science is all about anyway?

There was a film out some years ago called "What the bleep do we really know anyway?" Did you see this movie? If so, what are you viewpoints on the information it shared?

Energetics could definately come into the discussion and how they affect some aspects of this discussion. How can a person thousands of miles away, be seen by someone elsewhere when they are also somewhere else? I do believe in spiritual evolution, and look forward to what we will discover in the years to come.
_________________
"A little work won't hurt you bad, but just in case I'm wrong, you'll be smiling when they pronounce you dead." Amanda Marshall 'This could take all night

Post Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:57 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


(Pheonix :I posted something on (What the bleep...) in the M-theory post. Check it out if you haven't saw it.)

This will be a short post, I have things to do right now... I'll be back later with more.

Guess where I stand on this issue?

I believe that intelligent design is nothing more than religion in disguise that has nothing, what so ever, to do in science classes. Moreover I consider it to be an attack on science and I have nothing more than contempt for it. (more on that later)

Eiregirl said that she was happy that I didn't asked her about the judge, let me tell you what I thought about him. I was afraid at first that this republican, right-winged, christian judge would rule in favor of ID, to my relief and surprise, he did not, and I commend him for that.

Post Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:58 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


Alright... I would first like to point out that me being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that I believe intelligent design to be a harmful pseudo-science. I will not discuss here the existence or inexistence of any kind of deity or creator whatsoever (this would be another conversation all by itself). But I'll try to define here what intelligent design is and why I think it's harmful to science.

So, what is intelligent design ? Intelligent design is claimed by it's supporters to be an alternative scientific theory to Darwin's theory of evolution. So far so good, I have no problems at all with alternative theories, it's completely legitimate to do that.

Now, what does it take for a theory to be considered "scientific" ? A scientific theory as to be falsifiable (see Karl Popper's falsifiability concept) and it has to make predictions about the world. Intelligent design does that (although it's falsifiability could be argued), so we are on scientific grounds here. So, what are the scientific claims of ID ? There is actually only one and a pretty clever one to : it is based on what they call "Irreducible complexity". Darwinian evolution claims that all forms of life as gradually evolved from simpler organisms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that claims that if we could find a life form that is "built" in a way that every part of its body is essential for it to work (or to live) or in other words a life form that couldn't have evolved, then this would invalidate Darwin's idea that everything that lives came from simpler life forms. So to be able to teach this as science... you have to find this "irreducibly complex creature". The intelligent design squad claimed that they did. They had three examples for it. I'll talk only about one : the Flagellum (a very complex component that some bacterias have). So they claimed that the flagellum was assembled in a way that could not be of any kind of use if any one of its parts where missing. Which turned out to be completely false, since biologist have found simpler forms of this particular structure that was missing 50 of it's components and still worked. I won't go into anymore details but it was demonstrated that all of their "irreducibly complex" examples turned out not to be irreducible. And I want to point out again that this whole "irreducible complexity" thing is the scientific pillar of ID, without it, it's not science.

But still, despite all of the evidences against this theory, they still wanted to teach it as valid science which is completely irresponsible if you ask me. It would be like teaching that the earth is flat although all evidence shows that it is not. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated in science, we cannot teach things as if they are true in complete absence of evidence. Saying "I'm sure that there is some irreducible complex things out there but we just didn't find it yet" is, by definition, unscientific. This is why intelligent design falls into the pseudo-scientific realm and if we allow this to be taught in science classes why not teach astrology in astronomy classes or numerology in mathematics classes ?

A civilization that teaches pseudo-science or faith based knowledge as science is bound to scientifically collapse as it happened in Islam in the 11th century. The islamo-arabic civilization was the center of the intellectual and scientific world until science has been corrupted by faith based ideas. I don't want to see this happening to our western culture.

Post Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:49 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


“Guess where I stand on this issue?”

I did not have to guess…I knew the minute I saw the post that started the thread Smile

“I would first like to point out that me being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that I believe intelligent design to be a harmful pseudo-science. I will not discuss here the existence or inexistence of any kind of deity or creator whatsoever (this would be another conversation all by itself). But I'll try to define here what intelligent design is and why I think it's harmful to science.”

I will endeavor to try and keep the conversation away from talking about the existence or non existence of a “creator” as much as possible but I make no promises because of the very nature of this discussion as explained below. There is also no doubt that this will lead to a discussion about evolution…either here or in another post or both.

By the very use of those words you stated above you may end up having to talk about the existence or inexistence of a supreme being. Why? Because you brought up a court case that dealt with intelligent design of which is a religious based theory and since you admit to being an atheist I will assume you have absolutely no religious or spiritual beliefs. Any discussion about intelligent design will inevitably lead to talking about different views on how life began and/or how life came to be what it is today. Since you brought this court case and since you admit to being an atheist the question must be asked if you were not an atheist would you still consider intelligent design to be harmful and a pseudo science?

I will not say that Intelligent Design is not religion in disguise nor will I say that it is religion in disguise for the simple fact it is not in disguise…it is a fact that Intelligent Design has a basis in religion so therefore there is no disguise.

For those who believe the Theory of Evolution…it is fact.
Fore those who believe in creationism as stated by their religious or spiritual belief…it is fact.
For those who believe in Intelligent Design…it is fact

You state that you believe teaching “intelligent design” in school would be harmful to science and later you said, “A civilization that teaches pseudo-science or faith based knowledge as science is bound to scientifically collapse as it happened in Islam in the 11th century. The islamo-arabic civilization was the center of the intellectual and scientific world until science has been corrupted by faith based ideas. I don't want to see this happening to our western culture.” Are you saying that a person cannot have faith in science and a deep rooted interest in science while at the same time having a strong religious/spiritual belief? Whether that is what you are saying or not that is the implications of what you said.

In every country on this planet the majority of the people within that country have a religious or spiritual belief. Most of what is called “Western Civilization” is Christian and yet some of the greatest advances in “science” and “intellectual thought” have come from these parts of the world and many of those people consider themselves deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. So tell me how can someone claim a religious based theory to be harmful to science. How can anyone say religion harms science? Some of the greatest minds in history were devoutly religious people. I will admit that some of greatest minds in history had no religious convictions toward any God. All of these great thinkers of the past and present fill the spectrum from those who have a deep religious or spiritual belief to those who have none at all. Myself personally I see no harm in intelligent design…evolution or creationism being in schools…and personally I think they should all be taught together or not at all.

In my opinion…the judge was wrong.
Whether a person believes in intelligent design, the theory of evolution or creationism, it’s all theory with no hard evidence as to when, where, why and how it all began. One thing is sure though…one thing is total fact…evolution is not where it all started it is only the after effect.

To believe is to have faith that what you believe is true even if it is only true for you.


Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.


Last edited by Eiregirl on Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:57 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix:
Eiregirl,

You explain the issues very well. I once read that from pure statistical facts, that for life to have developed on it's own and evolve into the higher life forms would be the same probability of a tornado hitting a junk yard and a 747 is formed ready to fly.

Let me pose another question to add to this discussion. Where do souls come from? For some, they say souls do not exist. That when you die, you come to a complete end. But for those of us who have experienced interaction with souls or spirits of those who have passed on there is no doubt of a higher existence, and thus a greater force at work in the creation of life. Science has already proven that an atom can exist in two places at once. This is dumbfounding to those who come from a pure scientific standpoint. I do not proclaim to be any kind of expert on quantum physics, and find it to be a fascinating field, but the more we seem to discover, the more we question certain theories, and isn't that what science is all about anyway?

There was a film out some years ago called "What the bleep do we really know anyway?" Did you see this movie? If so, what are you viewpoints on the information it shared?

Energetics could definately come into the discussion and how they affect some aspects of this discussion. How can a person thousands of miles away, be seen by someone elsewhere when they are also somewhere else? I do believe in spiritual evolution, and look forward to what we will discover in the years to come.


Phoenix,

Thank you very much.

Yes I have seen "What the bleep do we know anyway"

I found it to be interesting and while they did have some good information and some of it made me think "How could they possibly think that" but it made me think about it. I would have liked to have seen more input from other points of view. I will admit it has been a long time since I watched it but that how I remember it. I remember thinking that it seemed a little one sided and that I would have liked more points of view.

I will look into watching it again and try and give you a better reply.

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:02 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


Hi again Very Happy

I wanted to comment and respond to what you said Eiregirl. There are so many points I want to bring up here. I doubt I can do it in a single post.

I will first like to take something I said back. I have said that intelligent design is a religion in disguise... I was wrong to say that, it is not a religion although there is religious reasons as to why they try to force it upon us.

Now, you asked me if me being an atheist had something to do with this. I thought I have been pretty clear on this. No it does not. The view I have on this particular issue doesn't concern God, at all.

I am not addressing the issue of the "original cause of the universe" if I may say so here nor does intelligent design. And I wanted to point that out in the beginning of my intro first because its posted everywhere on this forum that I'm an atheist and people aways associate intelligent design with the designer, or God. And it is a common misconception to think that science rejects intelligent design because it claims the existence of a god. I just didn't want people to think : "Oh ! she's an atheist that why she thinks intelligent design is bullshit."

Intelligent design makes no claims whatsoever as to what or who the designer is. It just claims that if they are correct about their hypothesis then we should consider the avenue of being some intention behind the living kingdom and then they suggest the existence of some form of intelligence that we know nothing about and should investigate.

I have no problems with this approach. I even think it's an interesting theory.

If their theory happened to be correct then yes, they would have discovered something that went against Darwin's theory and that would have been great ! Science would have progressed. But the problem is that this theory just doesn't happened to live up to it's own claims and they want to teach it as valid anyways.

I'm done for now... But I have a whole lot more to say.

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:10 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


Now, you asked me if me being an atheist had something to do with this. I thought I have been pretty clear on this. No it does not. The view I have on this particular issue doesn't concern God, at all.

No I did not ask if your being an atheist had anything to do with this. I asked “…since you admit to being an atheist the question must be asked if you were not an atheist would you still consider intelligent design to be harmful and a pseudo science?”

I will take this opportunity to admit that I am not a full believer is the theory of intelligent design, evolution or creationism. I have my own beliefs as to how the universe was created and how it has progressed since it’s creation. Could someone look upon those views and say that it is “intelligent design”? The very very simplistic one sentence explanation of my belief is that a supreme being created it all billions of years ago and imbued all living creatures with the energy of life and this energy binds us to all of creation. There is a more to it than that but that is the simple explanation. Some people consider this point of view “intelligent design” to me it is not what the proponents of the theory claim to support but I can see how people could consider it to be intelligent design.

Intelligent design makes no claims whatsoever as to what or who the designer is. It just claims that if they are correct about their hypothesis then we should consider the avenue of being some intention behind the living kingdom and then they suggest the existence of some form of intelligence that we know nothing about and should investigate.

The what or who does not matter…intelligent design suggests and intelligence behind it all. So why not investigate and if an answer is truly found that there is an intelligence behind it all then who cares if that answer was found by using accepted scientific means and methods? If an answer is found it is not going to matter anyway. If an answer were found how would that affect science would it truly progress it? Besides a negative answer can never be found. It can never be proven that there is not an intelligence behind it all.

Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:16 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


No I did not ask if your being an atheist had anything to do with this. I asked “…since you admit to being an atheist the question must be asked if you were not an atheist would you still consider intelligent design to be harmful and a pseudo science?”

Yes even if I was not an atheist I would still believe that ID is a harmful pseudo science. As I said earlier, my religious views as nothing to do with this.

Since you seem to be a deist, I would like to make a clear distinction between the philosophical point of view of the existence of a creator and the scientific theory that intelligent design is. They are 2 completely different things.

If you believe in the existence of a supreme being this doesn't mean that you are an intelligent design supporter and it doesn't necessarily mean that you think that the theory of evolution is invalid. Ken Miller, one of the biologist that testified against ID at the Dover trial was in fact a believer, but as a good scientist he saw that this particular theory was invalid. It doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, it only means that ID is the wrong theory to "find" god in a scientific way and that we should elaborated another theory if we plan on doing this.

So why not investigate and if an answer is truly found that there is an intelligence behind it all then who cares if that answer was found by using accepted scientific means and methods?

Why not investigate ? Sure, lets investigate, but it is unlikely to find God by looking at the way we (all living things) are "built" since nothing seems to points towards any kind of direct intelligent input as how life evolved. So if we want to ask the question "Does god exist and if so where can I look for him?" I think that you would have to look somewhere else than at the theory of evolution which has never been contradicted so far and is supported by tons of evidence (I'm not saying that it will not be contradicted one day). And between you and me, if a God is out there I think he will present himself in a much more subtle way than as a blacksmith that fabricates humans and living creatures.

That's it for now, See ya later with more Very Happy Arrow

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:13 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Khaleesi
Moderators


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 551
Location: FL


My question is since no one can prove how the universe came into existence, and I do mean NO ONE CAN PROVE how the universe came into existence, then why can't the different theories be taught as THEORIES. Guess that would be too simple huh? Oh and everyone would have something to scream about then because something they dislike is being taught. But then again if they were taught as THEORIES and not FACTS what would be the problem? But then again I'm a reasonable person and don't mind THEORIES being taught.


Khaleesi
_________________
Hike up your skirt a little more and show your world to me.....

Never start a row in public when it can be settled politely in private. ~My Father~

Post Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:43 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


Ok. I'll try to explain this... I don't know if I'll be able to though.

Roughly speaking, the question you are asking is this:

Why can't we teach any claims like :

- The world is flat.
- Gravity doesn't exist.
- The moon is made out of swiss cheese.

As theories in our classrooms ?


I first want to say that I think that the concept behind the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood. A theory is not about making claims, it's not a fact. A theory is about making predictions about the world from a certain model of the world. The word model is very important here. What is a model ? This is where the claim is. The model is the claim. For example :

- The moon is made out of swiss cheese.

Now what should we expect in a world where the moon is made out of swiss cheese ? We should expect on landing on a big chunk of cheese if we were to go there.

Now you have theory. You made a prediction.

Now if this theory turns out to live up to it's prediction, then swiss cheese lovers will be pleased and now you can teach it as valid, not as true, not as fact... but as valid, because a theory could, at any point in time, turn out not to be correct . (There's more to it than that, but it's the best I can do without going into long details.)

And the problem here is that Intelligent design does not survive it's own predictions. And they want to teach it as valid anyways... That's the real problem.


Last edited by Alice In Quantum Land on Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Post Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:08 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Khaleesi
Moderators


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 551
Location: FL


theory -

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Let me point out that NOWHERE in ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS of theory is the mention of "making of predictions". Look specifically at number 7. Guess or conjecture! AHA!!!

How about this!

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

And no I am not asking why cant' we teach :

-The world is flat. - That has already been disproved!
-Gravity doesn't exist. - Hmmm .... drops a rock on yer head ... gravity proven.
-The moon is made out of swiss cheese. - Well, supposedly we've been to the moon and it's not made of cheese.

By the way, I said teach THEORIES, so your examples are ludicrous.

So what would you have them teach in school? The Big Bang THEORY? That's fine with me as long as they teach it as theory, because unless I missed some big scientific announcement it was still an UNPROVABLE THEORY last time I checked.

Khaleesi
_________________
Hike up your skirt a little more and show your world to me.....

Never start a row in public when it can be settled politely in private. ~My Father~

Post Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:40 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77


Ok... I forgot to mention that we were talking about scientific theories here, not every synonyms of the word theory. This is what I found on Wikipedia under Scientific Theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive , logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

You can find this here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Post Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:00 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Khaleesi
Moderators


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 551
Location: FL


You do realize that ANYONE can edit the contents of wikipedia don't you? A seven year old with a computer can go to wikipedia and edit. Wouldn't be MY main source of info for ANY debate.

Khaleesi
_________________
Hike up your skirt a little more and show your world to me.....

Never start a row in public when it can be settled politely in private. ~My Father~

Post Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:09 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 


Search For Posters!


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

In Association with Amazon.com
     
Terms & Conditions Privacy Statement Acknowledgements