The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

You said "IT IS OBSERVED that matter cannot be created etc. etc."  Not that it was mathematically impossible.  

It's either a scientific theory based on observation, 
or a fact (proven theorem) of mathematics.  

If it's the first, then your hypothetical scenario makes no sense.  If it's the second, then why did you ask me to "imagine that the math doesn't work"?  Because clearly, for the purposes of this discussion, you cannot simultaneously invoke the fact that it does and the idea that it doesn't.  

And since you SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME that your supposed contradiction was found because of two contradicting observations, your objection maddens me.  

I'm going to work in a bit.   

Responding to your edit:  AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A FUCKING THEORY! 

Heh, sorry, don't mean to make you frustrated :P

It's the first  (I'm not sure why you're bringing math back into this, but whatever).  We've already gone over what a well-established observation is, and you agreed to it.  It is observed enough so that it is assumed it's true (basic tenet here).  So, it makes perfect sense (thanks Rol).

As for your last objection, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'll attempt to answer.  You are referring to whenever a theory gets overturned in light of new observations that are the opposite of what was originally observed, but what I'm referring to is two observations that would contradict unless a supernatural answer was imposed (if all there is is the physical, then we have a contradiction, yes?).  These are different in that the first is demonstrating that the original observation is no longer well-observed, while the other is not a case of that.

Regarding that you weren't referring to mathematics:  excellent!  Feel free to forget those parts of the post entirely.  

Now, I do not think that it is possible for two observations to contradict in the way that you propose.  In other posts you refer (I believe) to the idea that once a theory has been observed to be in harmony with many, many observations of phenomena, then it is assumed to be true; and you appear to be following that up with the idea that if an observation is (or observations are) made that contradict that assumption, then a supernatural cause must be ascribed because science must hold on to the assumption that it had developed.  

That is completely the opposite of what science is all about.  It is true that that is the way that theories are tested; and it is furthermore true that once something like gravity on the planetary scale has been observed and confirmed enough times then it is generally assumed to be true.  But.

BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT

If new data comes in that conclusively contradicts the theory, it is the duty of scientists to conclude that the theory that has been contradicted by observation is faulty or incomplete, and attempt to come up with a new or improved theory that can accomodate both existing data and the new data.  (Instead of concluding "OMG dood supernatural forces must be at work defying our unquestionably true theory!")

Furthermore, there is nothing in the scientific method that would cause (or indeed allow) someone utilizing it to conclude a supernatural cause.  Even if (for the sake of argument) something truly supernatural and beyond the power of science to explain were to happen, scientists would simply be unable to find a cause (instead of be able to deduct a supernatural cause).  It would be a mystery forever to science.  And whatever theory had gotten boned by the supernatural phenomenon would forever have that black mark on its record.  (So, if by "discarding science" way back there, you meant "discredit to some extent the contradicted theories", then we can probably come to some kind of agreement.)

And that is why your objection makes no sense -- why science can never conclude that supernatural forces are at work.  Because the scientific method doesn't work that way.  And I know you're tired of hearing that, but as long as you keep proposing what you are proposing, we have no choice (when responding) but to continue to point out your proposal's fatal flaw.  It doesn't work that way.  It can't.  It's like asking a computer to love.