how about...

[bluegooandyou]

How about making a spot for the creation facts, ideas and theorys, and other theorys of how we got here. I think that this board should not limit it self to just one theory, but explore the others. My apologys if there is already a spot, just havent seen one yet.....

[mith]

Because creation isn't science. Creation at the heart of it says things are created by supernatural means...which may be true but isn't testable scientifically.

[MrMistery]

a biology forum having topics on creation would be like a physics forum having topics on alternative hypothesis to gravity. The word "theory" in science means that it is supported by a large amount of evidence. Therefore, there can be only one theory at one time on a particular subject

[alextemplet]

Show us an alternative theory that is scientifically testable and supported by evidence, and I'm sure the mods will be glad to include a section for it. As far as I know, no such theory exists.

[Jones]

But what do you know? THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
I think it's a good idea, but maybe just theory in general more than just creation, but including creation.
You have to have reason to have a theory.
And a lot of theories are testable scientifically, they just have to be gone over enough times. How do we know if a creator didn't have the perfect formula for life and we just missed it because the biology online site refused people a forum to talk about theories?
Why not make it so that we can build up the evidence needed for such theories in such a place as this?


AND! I don't think it belongs in the off topic section.

[canalon]

Alternative to evolution can be discussed in th evolution section. Of course crackpot theories not based on scientific data or not providing testable hypothesis/ conclusions might be deleted or moved to the Off-topic section.

[alextemplet]

We seem to be having a misunderstanding over the definition of theory. Scientifically, to say that something is a theory is to say that it is as close as we can currently get to being proven. An idea or a guess (which most people would call a theory) is actually better described as a hypothesis.

[MrMistery]

"Evolution is a theory not a fact" said a very stupid biology teacher to me once.
"An apple falling is a fact, gravity is a theory" i said to him

[alextemplet]

That deserves to be quoted.

[JAP1st]

I agree with Jones in that such a prosperous site should not be restrained from reasoning. Science as we know it (including its hypothesis, theories and paradigms about what we perceive as reality) has not emerged and evolved by just scientific evidence, it is the reasoned discussion of "crackpot ideas" which has led to an evolution of scientific thought since the scientific revolution started.

For an hypothesis to be scientifically recognized, it must first be subject to thorough testing in search of falsability but, even before that, it must be formulated (whether on a scientific basis or not). Reasoning is as important as scientific grounds. Naturally, the more evidence and scientific basis an argument has, the more likely it is to be scientifically recognized as true (note that I refer to the probability of a theory of actually corresponding to reality).

The word "theory" in science means that it is supported by a large amount of evidence. Therefore, there can be only one theory at one time on a particular subject

I beg to differ, for there may be large amounts of evidence for two distinct theories (or even paradigms), being considered both as equally plausible. Thus, I disagree in that there can only be one theory on a particular subject. For such an example we could discuss how life emerged in a non-living yet enormously chaotic Earth; most of us have been taught that the most agreed theory (or hypothesis, I prefer not to give too much distinction on them) is that of the evolution to coacervate-like structures from less complex organic compounds, as well as the evolution of DNA as the first and main nucleic acid. Yet there are other theories that give more weight to liposomes, collective catalysis polimers, etc. and whose evidence is as strong as that of Oparin's theory, as well as the emerging theory of RNA as the main and first nucleic acid. So, could we say that this 'particular' (which is actually not particular at all) subject has only one plausible theory? Furthermore, I could not be in a position to say the there could only be one truth, but I digress...

I am not saying that we should focus an entire subforum to creationism, but it is worthy a spot where critical discussion based on reason (not gibberish and logical fallacies of course) and proofs may bring about new ideas and pathways of scientific (and why not common-sense too?) evolution. Perhaps we could call this subforum "Critical thinking of the scientific and of the non-scientific".

I will probably get lynched and a few foes in here, but I believe science has entered a phase of "scientific dogmatism" similar to the religion dogmatism that predominated in the St. Inquisition's time, dogmatism reinforced by a reductionist and extremely objectivist view of reality. If contemporary scientists propose new theories which are not in accordance with the paradigms well established by the scientific community consensus, they are qualified either as wrong, metaphysical, non-scientific or even "heretics of science".

In my opinion, to call something an unquestionable fact rather than a theory or an hypothesis is not that far from the dogmatic rules given by the catholic god in the Bible (should it matter, I am agnostic), so I would be rather cautious to call evolution a fact rather than a theory (I should clarify that I do believe evolution is real, not just in the terms of classical or neo-darwinism). If there is something life (and a couple of teachers too) has taught me is to doubt of my own doubts and to be critic on my own thoughts, as well as the others', without falling into a extreme sceptical thinking.

I just hope that nobody takes my comment in a personal way, it is rather a critical view of contemporary science which has to be rethought if we do not want to enter an era of scientific obscurantism (more than what we have entered so far). And it is this kind of discussions what lights the spark of our minds to develop better ideas.

I would recommend those interested in philosophy of science to read more from Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend. Those interested more specifically on the origin of life or evolution, Lynn Margulis, Samuel Buttler and Stuart Kauffman may give some not-so-conventional insights on the topic.

Greetings to everyone,
JAP

[MrMistery]

If evidence exists supporting 2 or more models, then none of them is a theory.

For such an example we could discuss how life emerged in a non-living yet enormously chaotic Earth; most of us have been taught that the most agreed theory (or hypothesis, I prefer not to give too much distinction on them) is that of the evolution to coacervate-like structures from less complex organic compounds, as well as the evolution of DNA as the first and main nucleic acid. Yet there are other theories that give more weight to liposomes, collective catalysis polimers, etc. and whose evidence is as strong as that of Oparin's theory, as well as the emerging theory of RNA as the main and first nucleic acid. So, could we say that this 'particular' (which is actually not particular at all) subject has only one plausible theory?

The Oparin-Haldane theory had been outdated for so many years. Nobody supports that anymore. Nobody. Plus, the "RNA world" is not an "emerging" model, it is the currently accepted model for what probably happened.

You make a good point about scientific dogmatism, but the phenomenon is by no means new. It has always been the case that someone wanting to change the view in science needs to provide evidence in support of his original idea in order to change the ideas of everyone else. This is because there is a reason everyone had those ideas in the first place - they were supported by previous evidence. Intelligent design and the like do not fall however in this category. That is because
1) it has no evidence to support itself
2) there is no need to reinterpret our data considering that our current model-evolution- explains everything so well. If someone would want me to believe him he would have to provide me with examples that either explains currently unexplained data, or provides simpler explanations for already-explained data. And No, "All things are the way they are because god made them like that" is not a valid explanation

[alextemplet]

Oh boy, the evolution debate has burst free from the bounds of its dedicated forum and runs rampant through the site suggestions. I guess it's always inevitable that we end up in a debate sooner or later.