This quote comes from the Dover School court decision against intelligent design (ID) reference page 136 & 137: This judge decided against intelligent design, but at the same time he says Darwin's theory is imperfect. What do you suppose this means? Main Entry: 1im·per·fect Pronunciation: (")im-'p&r-fikt Function: adjective Etymology: alteration of Middle English imperfit, from Middle French imparfait, from Latin imperfectus, from in- + perfectus perfect 1 : not perfect: as a : DEFECTIVE b of a flower : having stamens or pistils but not both c : lacking or not involving sexual reproduction <the imperfect stage of a fungus> 2 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb tense used to designate a continuing state or an incomplete action especially in the past 3 : not enforceable at law
Hey woody, educate yourself with some cartoons : http://youtube.com/w/TV-Funhouse-(SNL)--Darwin?v=RRx29Yh1Qvk&search=snl darwin
DARWIN's theory WAS imperfect. He didn't know about genetics and all that stuff. Now we do. The current theory of evolution is closer to perfection. I don't know what it's missing or anything, but nothing is perfect, i'm assuming the theory of evolution isn't either. I suppose it means that either one: he doesn't know ALL the facts, which is very likely. He's not an evolutionary biologist. two: he meant what I said or three: he knows of something I don't know, that makes the current evolutionary theory "imperfect" somehow.
When you say "Darwins Theory", I assume you mean the collective evidence formed from his theory, up until the present day. Why not just say "Evolution" to make it clear? Fundies constantly wish to go back to Darwin despite the fact much more is known now. I assume he means that evolution is a fact in so far as we know it happens, but we don't understand everything about it. But Woody, what is your point? What scientific theory is perfect? Perhaps some genius will prove Einstein wrong on a lot of things in the future just as Einstein did to Newton, you just never know. Science constantly tries to form hypothesis and prove each one wrong until the best explanation is left. Either way, progress in science is assured.
einstein proved newton wrong? uh... no, he just expanded on the truth. Newton's laws are still valid.
This one is really funny and true, I like the celi-bots. You make me laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Did you read your own quote at all? To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
no theory is perfect. this is a dumb conversation... thats why it is called a "THEORY", and not "UNDISPUTABLE FACT".
No it isn't. Scientific theories are as close as you will get to facts. Theories do not "graduate" into facts, they're at the top of the ladder.
youre right, darwins theory is imperfect. he was right about the core of it though, and since we have now had quite some time to work it out, the theory of evolution (which is no longer the property of darwin) is doing a pretty awesome job of explaining some processes in the natural world.
we had this conversation about the difference between scientific theory and fact somewhere on here a while ago, though i cant remember where it is. i posted a set of requirements from the US national academy of sciences listing what is necessary for a hypothesis to become an accepted scientific theory. theory is indeed pretty much the closest that science ever gets to undisputable fact because 1. an experiment cannot be done in every single set of conceivable circumstances, so it cannot be definitively proven to work as a solution to a problem in every scenario both forseen and unforseen. and 2. theory allows for adaptation in the light of new information. for example, we know that in the "quantum universe" many of the standard rules of nature are distorted or apply differently due to the incredibly small scale of the objects being studied. we did not know this in the 1950's, but the scientific theories of the 50's arent completely invalidated by the new data, they just contain some caveats now. if science claimed undisputable fact, then everything would need to be thrown out and redone after any new information came to the fore.
SM, Yes I read my own quote. I have not read all 136 pages of the court case. I understand what the quote says. Perhaps the judge's choice of the word "imperfect" was a poor choice. The word "imperfect" implies defectiveness. In addition, the judge says "To be sure" -- implying that everyone knows and agrees with the imperfection.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., all worship different gods with different theologies, each proclaiming themselves to be the correct one. Therefore religion is not perfect. The concept of evolution is correct. It's the mechanisms by which it's accomplished that require constant study and re-examination of the evidence we have at hand. The idea that "now we know" has limited applicability.
everyone should be aware that the theory of evolution is not perfect. no theory is perfect. but it can be closer to perfection than others, which it seems to be.
