# evolution sucks **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2000, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893 "2000-11-12T15:06:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/41 "2000-11-20T03:43:11Z")
peace, why should javaman look up “theory”? He did a pretty good job of explaining it. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/42 "2000-11-20T03:44:40Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] peace said: > [@](#): > > But do not say that something is not a fact because your feeble mind do not understand it. Cool it with the insults. Or take it to the Pit. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/43 "2000-11-20T04:15:37Z")
Javaman\*\*: A theory is supposed to be a coherent explanation which attempts to cover observed facts. \*\* A standard police report fits this description. Main Entry: the.o.ry Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein Date: 1592 Inflected Form(s): plural -ries a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena Not included in this definition but generally accepted is this: a theory should predict the consequence of events which may occur based on suggested laws. E.g., Newton’s theory of mechanics can predict the trajectory of a pool ball after it’s hit by another ball. Darwin’s theory predicts that traits unnecessary for the survival of the species, will gradually be lost. Besides, the opening statement implies that evolution does not work: “…is only a theory”. If the (whole)theory does not work or was not tested yet, it’s usually called “a hypothesis”. “Disclaimer-stickers” should be explained: what are they? I normally do not read schoolbooks, I really do not know. His last sentence is absolutely correct and is very encouraging to me. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/44 "2000-11-20T04:21:45Z")
Yours was a little bit more specific, but didn’t contradict what he said. So again, I don’t see why you felt the need to tell him to look up a term that he obviously understands – especially when you admit that you don’t really understand all of what he was talking about (like the disclaimers). ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/45 "2000-11-20T04:44:47Z")
David, if you really want to know why, it was because his two posts did not make sense to me: on one hand he makes an absolutely correct statement, and right away says something I can barely understand. It’s possible that the problem is at this end, but usually I understand people here, youself included, for example. So, interpret him, if you will. If he is intested, I’d be glad to offer explanation. If he agrees with C. Darwin, but disagrees with other people…I can’t help. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/46 "2000-11-20T06:19:53Z")
**javaman’s** post about our ancestors is what is known as a joke. He was making light of the fact that many creationists say evolution can’t be true because it would mean we come from lower animals. **javaman’s** feigned incredulity came from the claim that we evolved from animals that were much _better_ than us. In this way it also played off the common assumption that evolution is a progression from lower to higher forms of life. Not exactly a kneeslapper, but I thought he made a good point. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/47 "2000-11-20T13:33:41Z")
Perhaps peace should look that up in the dictionary under “j.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@JustAnotherGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/48 "2000-11-20T18:00:52Z")
While I cannot say that Creationism is a scientifically provable Theory, it is certainly a Theory. The Theory, which any of your preponderance of evidence can be used to correlate, is that God created everything. Not all scientists believe in the Big Bang, there are other theories that are considered to have ‘created’ the universe. I believe most children in high school understand a theory to be potentially wrong. In fact a common use of the word indicates that it is in error… “Nice theory, now here are the facts…” I don’t think that you will find many teachers in high school science classes touting the irrefutable evidence of Evolution. As long as the term Theory of proceeds it, there will remain a doubt and rightly so. I forget who wrote it above, that Evolution is the most sound of scientific theories. Is there any other scientific theory that requires continual research to prove it’s plausability? Any Theory that has been more contested more doubted? Are scientists still studying the ramifications of the Theory of Gravity? Do chemists continue to seek out new Elements? Are biologists puzzled about how the circulatory system works? The reason there are so many cites and so many more popping up every day is that there are alot of potential holes in the Theory of Evolution that scientists are still closing up and anti-evolutionary creationists are aiming their Christ cannons at. Does that mean it shouldn’t be taught? Absolutely not, however until undeniable, otherwise inexplicable proof of the Big Bang and the Evolutionary birth of mankind are discovered, even scientists should allow that it is remotely possible that an entirely new Theory _could_ come to light to refute these theories. [dry humor on] Assuredly when God comes down from the Heavens and destroys you preachers of the false word with fire and brimstone, you will then know the Theory of Evolution was a hypothesis and the wrong one [dry humor off] I agree with One Cell… > [@](#): > > At this point in our brain evolution, everything points to “human ignorance” as the creator of the concept of God, which is the easy way out. Have you noticed whenever we reach the limits of our mental capacity to explain the unknown, we simply say “God knows”. And since the concept of God is created by human beings, we are basically saying that we are ignorant, which in year 2001 is the absolute truth. Even from a 100% scientific and objective view, what if? seems a valid question to fill in any hole. There were scientists that professed many years ago that the world was flat, it was taken as a fact. There were scientists who swore the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was the center of our solar system. These too were taken as fact for thousands of years. Embrace that C. Darwin was ridiculed, scientists before him died for their revolutionary and opposing theories. ---
**Author:** ![tourbot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@tourbot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tourbot)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/49 "2000-11-20T19:06:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy \* > While I cannot say that Creationism is a scientifically provable Theory, it is certainly a Theory. So, are you agreeing that it isn’t a scientific theory then? > [@](#): > > I forget who wrote it above, that Evolution is the most sound of scientific theories. Is there any other scientific theory that requires continual research to prove it’s plausability? There really aren’t many scientists who are trying to prove the plausibility of evolution. I would say none, but I’ll give the benefit of including creation ‘scientists’ as scientists. > [@](#): > > Any Theory that has been more contested more doubted? Sure. The Sun being at the center of the solar system had a pretty good run for awhile. > [@](#): > > Are scientists still studying the ramifications of the Theory of Gravity? Do chemists continue to seek out new Elements? Are biologists puzzled about how the circulatory system works? Yes, Yes, and no. Then again, scientists aren’t puzzled about how evolution works either, and I’m sure research is conducted on circulatory systems all the time. ---
**Author:** ![peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/50 "2000-11-20T20:16:22Z")
There is subtle humor and army humor. I was in uniform, when I read Javaman’s. JAG, though, seems to be serious. Tourbot answered him, I’d like to add: **JAG: While I cannot say that Creationism is a scientifically provable Theory,** A theory must be (scientifically) “provable”. No other categories of theories are currently known. \*\*JAG: I believe most children in high school understand a theory to be potentially wrong. \*\* 1. Speak for yourself. 2. A theory can be right regardless of the degree of the audience understanding 3. How “potentially wrong” differs from “wrong”? In general, there is “evolution” and “the theory of evolution”. The former objectively exists in the nature, regardless of the latter. **JAG: Are scientists still studying the ramifications of the Theory of Gravity?** If you mean “gravitation theory”, YES. **JAG: Do chemists continue to seek out new Elements?** Chemists? NO. Physicists? YES. **JAG: Are biologists puzzled about how the circulatory system works?** You bet. **JAG: …there are alot of {potential} holes in the Theory of Evolution…** There are no “holes”. If you see holes, give the examples please. Some observed facts are not explained. This does not make the whole theory wrong. **JAG: … the Evolutionary birth of mankind are discovered** They are. Could you, JAG, state your points more coherently please? Not like: “How could man evolve from lower animals?” – it would require long answers and can be found elsewhere –but as “…this point is wrong, because…” TIA. ---
**Author:** ![Mauve\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@Mauve\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mauve_Dog)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2000, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/51 "2000-11-20T23:19:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy \* > **While I cannot say that Creationism is a scientifically provable Theory, it is certainly a Theory. The Theory, which any of your preponderance of evidence can be used to correlate, is that God created everything. Not all scientists believe in the Big Bang, there are other theories that are considered to have ‘created’ the universe.** Creationism is not a theory; it’s a fancy word given to a statement: “God made everything.” That’s it. It doesn’t attempt to explain anything, it is neither testable nor verifiable. It in no way enhaces understanding. \*\* > [@](#): > > I believe most children in high school understand a theory to be potentially wrong. In fact a common use of the word indicates that it is in error… “Nice theory, now here are the facts…” I don’t think that you will find many teachers in high school science classes touting the irrefutable evidence of Evolution. As long as the term Theory of proceeds it, there will remain a doubt and rightly so.\*\* There is no doubt as to whether evolution occurs. There is doubt regarding the mechanisms behind it. The ‘Theory’ part is not meant as a disclaimer about the reliability of the knowledge. \*\* > [@](#): > > I forget who wrote it above, that Evolution is the most sound of scientific theories. Is there any other scientific theory that requires continual research to prove it’s plausability?\*\* Evolution does not require continual research to prove its plausability. Research takes place to discover new mechanisms, or to test theories about existing ones. Any attacks on its plausibility tend to come from those who don’t understand it in the first place. \*\* > [@](#): > > The reason there are so many cites and so many more popping up every day is that there are alot of potential holes in the Theory of Evolution that scientists are still closing up and anti-evolutionary creationists are aiming their Christ cannons at.\*\* Well, no. The multiple sites that are showing up all state the same, tired arguments which have been discounted many times, long ago. Those aiming their “Christ cannons,” however, are ‘blinded by the light,’ so to speak, and can’t (or won’t) see the evidence set before them. That there are potential holes in any particular _mechanism_ is not surprising. That’s what peer review is for - to point out these holes. That’s how theories get revised and re-tested, and knowledge is furthered. \*\* > [@](#): > > Does that mean it shouldn’t be taught? Absolutely not, however until undeniable, otherwise inexplicable proof of the Big Bang and the Evolutionary birth of mankind are discovered, even scientists should allow that it is remotely possible that an entirely new Theory _could_ come to light to refute these theories.\*\* The only alternative to evolution is Special Creation, which is not a theory, is not testable, and it is not possible to show evidence, or even lack thereof, that it doesn’t happen. As for teaching it, what is to be taught? “OK kids, today we learn about the Theory of Special Creation. This theory states that God created everything, and is continually creating anew, despite what you might have read in the Bible.” And that would be pretty much it. Evidence? There is none. Proof? There is none. Tests? There can be none. \*\* > [@](#): > > There were scientists that professed many years ago that the world was flat, it was taken as a fact. There were scientists who swore the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was the center of our solar system. These too were taken as fact for thousands of years. Embrace that C. Darwin was ridiculed, scientists before him died for their revolutionary and opposing theories.\*\* Hmmm…there were also people who took as fact that the Bible is the unyielding Truth, the Absolute and Complete Word of God, and, in fact, there still are. This has been taken as fact for a couple thousand years. Where does that leave your argument? ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2000, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893/52 "2000-11-21T00:54:14Z")
**Peace** : > [@](#): > > “Disclaimer-stickers” should be explained: what are they? I normally do not read schoolbooks, I really do not know. Some states now have laws requiring that stickers be added to biology textbooks in an attempt to appease those who are offended by the theory of evolution. One such disclaimer is discussed at [Dissecting the Disclaimer](http://216.87.9.200/resources/resources/931152343750.asp). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-sucks/40893.md?page=2)