Science Draak

Science is for everyone

Archive for February, 2010

Degeneration, the end of evolutionary theory.

Feb 11

Posted by E Leegstra in Book Reviews | 2 Comments

And a scientific alternative.

A scan of the book

I found this book in the library by chance, I was looking for some books on geology but instead stumbled upon this little gem. It is written by Peter M. Scheele and it advertises itself as the end of evolutionary theory.

This however, is far from accurate, and the books promotes a lot of misconceptions and false information in order to get its point across. It’s main alternative for instance, is based on two falsehoods.

In this review, I’m going to take a closer look at the two main points the book makes, and how a review of those points shows the problems with the ideas this writer brings forth. Then I will shortly go into detail on the alternative and how, without those two points, the whole alternative is ridiculous, based upon a false premise.

When I quote from the book, I will translate it to English myself (It’s a Dutch book) and try to accurately represent the book. This is a bit of a challenge, because the book is written in a strange way. The author also tries to explain many concepts in an informal way, causing a lot of problems not only for translation but also for the ideas he tries to represent, making it a bit harder to translate. I will do my best though.

I would also like to add that the author seems to have a certain kind of arrogance, when reading this book, you always have the feeling that he feels he’s right, no matter what, and that he’s some kind of self glorified rebel against the system. A sensation that doesn’t exactly make the book more fun to read.

Shall I make a spry remark, one which might just make the news?

The whole problem of missing morals and values in society, and the heavy need for social discussion about this, finds its origin in the acceptance of evolutionary theory. (p.26)

Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Evolution. A theory and a fact?

Feb 10

Posted by E Leegstra in Science explained | No Comments

 Questionmark

In a previous post HERE, the principles behind a scientific theory rae explained and the differences between a scientific and personal theory were pointed out.

Many sources say that Evolution is both a theory, and a fact, and this might be confusing. How can something be a fact and not a fact and a theory at the same time?

It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are actually two separate understandings that simply carry the same name. They are separate, but one (the theory) describes how the other (the fact) works.

It works like this:

Facts are found all over the world. In a way, you could call these facts the observations we find in our search for knowledge. A simple way to look at it, is to look outside and say “grass grows, it’s a fact” and in normal circumstances you would be right, grass does grow. But how and why does it grow?

This is where a theory comes in handy, it tries to explain the fact, the observations. In our grass analogy, it could explain the inner workings off the grass, making the conclusion (it grows) a fact supported by a theory.
In a way, you could call it grass growing theory.

Same with evolutionary theory and fact. There is a series of facts, facts which were first put together by Darwin, he than explained these facts. At some point the facts were called evolution. And the theory of evolution, explains how it works.
One understands of course, that as more and more observations are made on the topic of evolution. The theory adapts, because it has to explain it all as accurately as possible.

An example to clear this up. If we just made a  theory on how grass works. But we never knew grass had roots. Then finding grass roots, would give us new observations, a new fact that hasn’t been explained by our “grass theory”. In other words, we have to change our theory so that it explains grass, including the grass roots, and we have to do so, in a way that both get explained.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

What is a theory?

Feb 1

Posted by E Leegstra in Science explained | No Comments

QuestionmarkA theory is basically the ability to explain a phenomenon. There are  two uses of the word theory. One is a personal use of the word, something you find in every day life. The second is the scientific use, which is a bit different and less known outside of the scientific circles.

When we think up ideas to explain some phenomenon we encounter, we will make up a theory that can explain it. Usually, this means, guessing a bit, sometimes by using some of the surrounding evidence to support our guess.
For example. If we find a tree that had fallen on the road, we could guess that it might have been cut down. Or perhaps it was broken by a storm. We could use what we know and see, to make a guess (or multiple) to the reasons of the tree being on the road. This means we’re basically making theories on that specific phenomenon.

This is a personal use of the word theory. Any one of the theories could be right or wrong.

In science, the word theory is something different. In science, a theory has little to do with guesses, and more with accumulated evidence.
A scientific theory is still an explanation for a phenomenon. But it’s an explanation that has accumulated so much evidence supporting it, that the chance of that explanation being wrong, is really small.
On top of that, the evidence that is gathered, is repeatable, consists of experiments or data that can be repeated and rechecked as needed, thus building a solid base of support for the explanation.

If one were to do a lab test, and would repeat that same test 1000 times. One would get 1000 results of that specific lab tests. If 980 out of those 1000 results point to the same result. One can say that this result is very solid. One can say that doing the test another time is probably going to end up with the same result, with a very low chance of the result being different.

This is, in simple words, how theories function. You have a lot of data, from many different fields of science (biology, paleontology, etc) that all support the scientific theory of evolution.

Thus, the chance of a new piece of data, a new result, a new piece of information, coming along and being different, is nearly zero.
There’s more to it than that of course. Because even though the whole theory is a sturdy mass of evidence, it doesn’t mean that small parts of it aren’t revised if more accurate information comes along.
A way to look at it. Is like looking at a really complicated tree. It has branches all the way up, that we still haven’t discovered, that tell us things about the tree. But whatever we find, the tree is still a tree. It won’t change the tree. It’ll only change our understanding of those branches and how the fit with the tree.

There’s one more factor that makes a scientific theory different from a personal one. And that is the power to make predictions.

Based on information that has been gathered before. Predictions can be made about more information that is found.

Predictions are a powerful tool, because they help validate the theory in two ways:

1. If information is found that doesn’t follow the prediction, than the prediction and the explanation it is based on, obviously has errors and the explanation can be changed and edited to make it more accurate.

2. If the prediction does hold ground, it’s a validation of the strength of the theory.

And that is the difference between a scientific theory and a personal theory.Keep in mind, that this means that when a scientist (or anyone) uses the word theory. It doesn’t automatically make it a scientific topic

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,