LRR, the issue that a lot of layman cannot seem to fathom is that while scientific theory evolves, the observations that gave rise to those theories do not. Newer theories are more robust because they include observations that were inconsistent with older theories. Thus, ideal gases were recognized as a special case where interatomic forces were either absent or minimal, and newer, more inclusive atomic theories arose to replace the older restricted, ideas. Nevertheless, the original observations are still germane.
While I'm at it, I would also like to point out that another problem that layman generally have is their failure to grasp that a theory is the strongest explanatory statement a scientist will ever make. The theory needs to be inclusive, falsifiable and predictive. And it needs to be based on empirical evidence.
A common misunderstanding is that the theory of evolution somehow means that evolution is problematic. Not so. Evolution is fact. It has been observed countless times both in the laboratory and in nature. The explanation of evolution --mutagenesis, natural selection, etc.-- that's the theoretical part.
That's why Scientific Creationism is an oxymoron. It is not falsifiable, nor is it predictive. There is no set of observations that renders the "theory" untenable. Thus, it is not a theory at all, but really a religion masquerading as science.
TTFN,
CTC |
