Draugnar:
From the US National Academy of Sciences:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time."
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc, Chapter 1, Page 11)

I a degree in a science field. Theory != fact. Theory is a preponderence of evidence. Fact requires a proof. Some theory is accepted as if it were fact but that does not make it fact.

To wit, about theories, and gravity:

Newton's theory of gravity evolved (heh) into Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Later, Einstein's Theory of Relativity showed that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation wasn't exactly correct.

The Theory of Relativity was so well-proven that it showed that a previously "known scientific fact" was not a fact at all, but Relativity remains a theory. Newton's Law is still used because in most cases it's "good enough" and is a much simpler calculation, but it's no fact.

As it says, theory is supported by fact, but it is still not fact. Evolution on the micro scale is fact as it is observable, but until we develop time travel to see the past, we cannot observer and prove macro evolution.

Draugnar, nobody is saying that a theory IS a fact. You can keep shouting that they're not the exact same thing if you want, but you're arguing with yourself.

by the way, this debate started in the U.S. in the early 20th century, and evolution was opposed by a small group of fundamentalists everyone say as quacks and in nearly 100 years the sides are almost exactly the same. People wonder why the U.S. is "falling behind" we've been towing this anchor for over a century.

I'm only arguing the semantics of the terms because Putin decided to declare evolution as fact when it is no such thing. And I'm an evolutionist.

Ah, fair enough. I can't claim to have read the whole thread, I didn't see that part.

@TWA - Putin did. He stated evolution was fact.

And the real reason we still call Newton's Law a law is that a theory can't disprove a fact until it becomes a fact. If we ever manage a proof to relativity, science will have enough to revise gravity and provided an accurate proof. However, being Newton, it will probably stay around as Newton's Simplified Law or something like that.

"Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is called “descent with modification.” There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.
As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution “unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world” (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.
There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing."

Evolution is fact. It is not a matter of debate. The specifics of evolution are debated, the basic idea of evolution is not. People who say otherwise are attacking the foundations of science and misleading the public into undermining our scientific literacy in this country.

Ummmmm...

How did we get from Glenn Beck to the Theory of Evolution? (Unless someone's arguing he's a less-evolved primate?)

"The Theory of Relativity was so well-proven that it showed that a previously "known scientific fact" was not a fact at all, but Relativity remains a theory. Newton's Law is still used because in most cases it's "good enough" and is a much simpler calculation, but it's no fact."

@ Sacred Digits,

Do you propose we concoct some pseudoscientific explanation of gravity based on superstition and medieval ghost stories and give it equal time and consideration with the theory of gravity? Or force teachers to attach numerous qualifiers to the theory gravity and explain to their class that gravity is nothing more than a "controversial guess"? Or perhaps we should replace scientific explanations for gravity with substitution completely? How far are you people willing to go with this?

"How did we get from Glenn Beck to the Theory of Evolution? (Unless someone's arguing he's a less-evolved primate?)"

Heaven forbid we talk about something else in the same thread!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/04/jon-stewart-glenn-beck-fox.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e3d7098b970b

*superstition, not substitution.

" I lnow you Fre a pseudo science professor (PoliSci is an arts course, not a science) so the difference between fact and theory eludes you."

Really, because the degree awarded is a Bachelor of Arts, you take that to mean that all social sciences are "pseudo sciences"? Your ignorance is astounding. Princeton University only gives Bachelor of Science in engineering, so evidently that means that physics, biology, etc are "pseudo-sciences", all because of the BA/BS designation which has no substantive meaning whatsoever.

You're a fool.

The word "fact" doesn't belong in science. You have observations, and you have theories which explain the observations. Gravity is just as much a theory as evolution or anything else.

The rise of the anti-evolution movement is rather strange. The intellectual forefathers of fundamentalism were not "young earth creationists," and generally understood that Genesis wasn't a literal description of what happened. There's a good book (In the Beginning) about *how* anti-evolutionism became a powerful force in the early 20th century, but there's no clear explanation of *why* it motivated activism.

It is a big problem though. When you realize that a good chunk of Americans have been told for generations that scientists are pushing a false theory about the age of the earth in order to undermine Christianity and take over the world, it's easier to understand how Glenn Beck can find an audience.

Princeton doesn't offer any Bachelor of Science. Only BSEs and MSEs, which is why the don't of a science degree in Physics. But more to the point, one universities decision to classify what most places consider a science under an arts degree does not negate the argument that PoliSci is generally considered an arts degree. Show me one major accredited university that lists PoliSci as a science degree and you will refuted my statement. Until then, your Princeton argument is irrelevant.

The science vs arts distinction is irrelevant and meaningless, your whole argument is silly. Because a degree is called "Bachelor of Arts" doesn't mean that is not a science and shows you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to anything regarding academia. The Bachelor of Arts designation is given to degrees in which the general requirements include a well rounded curriculum in the liberal arts. Bachelor of Science degrees have no such requirement. The reason why Princeton does not give out BS's to physics and biology majors is not because they don't regard them as "science" degrees but because Princeton requires nearly all of its programs to require substantial course work in the liberal arts.

The little credibility you had on these matters is now completely gone.

As usual, the fundies are exploiting the fact that science refrains from absolutes or ultimate explanations to claim that there is considerable "debate" about the evidence for evolution and that is an open question. It isn't an open question. Whether this is called 'fact' or not is a matter of semantics, but the debate is closed.

"Show me one major accredited university that lists PoliSci as a science degree and you will refuted my statement. Until then, your Princeton argument is irrelevant."

The University of Iowa

http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/undergrad/majors/at-iowa/PoliticalScience.html

"BS in Political Science

BS students must complete a minimum of 44 s.h. of course work for the major. In addition to the political science courses required for the BA, you’ll take several quantitative courses, including these:

Understanding Political Research
Undergraduate Research Tutorial
A set of three courses in mathematics or statistics"

Washington University in St. Louis.
http://ucollege.wustl.edu/areas/arts_sciences/polisci

Northeastern University
http://www.cps.neu.edu/degree-programs/undergraduate/bachelors-degrees/bachelors-science-political-science.php

Are we done here?

Sometimes you can talk so eloquently and intelligently, Putin. So why do you insist on falling back on insulting nicknames ("fundies"), false equivalencies, and obvious misinterpretations as well as out of context quotations on a regular basis? I hope you don't use these tools of the desperate with your students because you do them a disservice if you do and yourself one when you do it here.

I've never made claim to being an academic. In fact, quite the opposite. I only have an Associates in Science as my parents weren't rich (despite some folks claim to the contrary) and I had to mortgage my future to get that. My skills lie in the realm of logic, problem solving, and intuitive thinking to find the root of the problem and how to fix it quickly and efficiently, not in book learning or philosophy. You, however, are an acadenic and should hold yourself to a higher standard than you do.

I was typing that at the same time as your post. I can accept PoliSci as a science as you did exactly what I asked.

@Putin:

Yes, granted, there are usualy more topics than the main one talked about in a thread...

I'm just saying that in a thread about politics, to bring in an argument about the Theories of Relativity and Evolution seems a bit of a leap (and I saw that clip live when it was aired, GREAT parody by Stewart.)

So yeah...just for laughs, would someone OTHER than Putin like to tell me how me made such a quantum leap from talking about Glenn Beck and FOX News to The Greatest Hits of Darwin and Einstein?

"are an acadenic and should hold yourself to a higher standard than you do."

You should spend time with groups of academics, often a departments standards onf decency are on par with a middle school cafeteria.

It went through religion in public schools via student run prayer groups or private prayer (no surprise Putin thinks all religious observation should be banned in public as he has no problem curtailing the free observance there of) and from there migrated to his generally attacking all people of faith by equating them all with the fundamentalists and creation science folks.

Santa +1

But I really was referring to the standard they should hold themselves to as the supposed creme de la creme, not the arrogant "do as I say cause I know better than you" standard they actually do hold themselves to.

Well, if Draugnar's account is accurate...

Really, Putin?

I mean, granted everyone here knows I'm no fan of ogranized religion--believe whatever you want, as long as you don't kill or harm someone over it, but I just can't get behind the idea of a book or a man in a robe telling you what *your* faith says and waht you should do to honor *your* God or gods or spirit or whatever--but come on...

I have religious friends, including one on Lent right now, and while I'll make the occaisional light-hearted joke, I can somehow get through the day without going Dawkins on their ass and calling them loonies for believing in something...

Mostly because, well--I think DAWKINS is hisn own little Atheistic Fundamentalist.

And I'd say you're looking quite the same, Putin...

"ALL people of faith are fundamentalist, dogmatic fools!"
"Don't you think THAT statement is a bit dogmatic ITSELF, sir?"
"...HAHA, all faith is foolish and perverted and curtails freedom!"
"Again...don't you think THAT statement and disallowing free displays of faith curtails freedom?"
"...Don't question me, I'M the one giving the mocking, self-important inquisition around here!"
"And isn't that what you hate about religion and faith--their self-reighteous, pompous, holier-than-thou stance?"
"AND the Inquisitions,like the Spanish Inquisition!"
"You mean like you're giving right now to these people of faith?"
"Huh...I...I didn't expect to be doing that."
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

"You should spend time with groups of academics, often a departments standards onf decency are on par with a middle school cafeteria."

I've spent time in academic circles and middle school cafeterias and can assure you that the average pre-adolescent has nothing on your typical professor in that regard ;-)