I am sorry to be a couple of days late on this post. July 1st of 2008 began an 18-month celebration of Charles Darwin and his great work, The Origin of Species. But what’s the hype? Darwin wasn’t the first to entertain the idea of evolution. Darwin wasn’t the first to consider natural selection. And Darwin certainly isn’t the only person to have written and publicized a controversial scientific theory. The reason for the hype is that Darwin shattered the delicate box that science had been placed in: a glass box so that science could be seen, but never allowed to challenge traditional mythology.

When Galileo pronounced the Sun to be the center of the solar system, the church was fuming. If the earth is not the center of the solar system, or the universe as a whole, then God had made us on a planet “off to the side,” so to speak. Devastating, but not a finishing blow by any means. But Darwin! Evolution by natural selection not only eliminates the need for divine intervention in the creation of humans, but it denies the possibility of such intervention. Now, Darwinian evolution allows for a god, and that god could have planted the first single cells on the earth. This idea does no harm to Darwin’s theory (though it is an increasingly meaningless idea). But that’s it. Natural selection, the process proven in every studied case, is defined as being without intelligent guidance. The only god that assisted in the creation of humans was the Einsteinian god.

This is why we must celebrate Darwin. It is more important than ever that we understand Darwin’s contribution, not to science, but to civilization. Darwin knew exactly what his theory meant. Darwin knew that if his theory was followed to it’s logical conclusion, his God would evaporate and the pedestal humans stood upon would collapse. Yet scientific fact does not depend upon what we want to be true, but what is true. All evidence supports evolution by natural selection, while no evidence supports divine existence. Darwin chose enlightening truth over blissful ignorance.

Today, we should all be so strong. During this 18-month celebration of Darwin, try to follow his lead. Look at your own life and your own ideas of the world. What do you continue to believe despite evidence to the contrary? Find the truth and recognize it, because it is more beautiful than you can imagine.

The made easy series by potholer54

I would like to add that this is not an atheist web-site. I am an atheist, and a proud atheist. Many of the other posters will also be atheists. But there are enough atheist web-sites and blogs that another would hardly help. This is definitely NOT a Christian web-site, nor does it favor any religion.

Please do not attack someones beliefs if they are not a part of the current argument. If the topic is evolution and abiogenesis, and they say that the earth is 6000 years old, blast away. If the topic is WW2's Pacific tactics, and they say that Krishna cries for those lost, this is not contradictory to the facts presented and should be respected as a true sorrow for the loss of life.

That being said, constant religious remarks under the supposed protection of this rule will result in a loss of posting privileges. The occasional emotion driven post is expected, but please try to keep posts as respectful to other members as you want those members to be respectful to your posts. Don't just toss in God and Jesus because you have the right to. It's unnecessary and childish.

In order to keep this site academic in purpose, it will be best to adhere to an already proven style of argument that is fair and efficient. The Scientific Method is generally associated with science in particular, but the general framework of this method is the best form of arguing a hypothesis in any academic field. The Scientific Method is the surest way to sort out all of the ideas that, right or wrong, are simply not supported sufficiently to bear discussion. An example of arguments immune from the scientific method would be God, ET, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. These may or may not exist, but they are unsupportable based on a lack of evidence. None of these topics are necessarily banned from discussion here, but any discussion of these must have a body of supporting evidence.

So what is the Scientific Method and how does one use it? The latter I will describe shortly, but first let me explain what the Scientific Method is. The Scientific Method is not a sort of mantra or religion. It is a way of looking at a problem, a new event or observation that does not make sense based on one’s previous experience. The Scientific Method is not always the best way to solve a subjective (personal opinion) problem, but it is nearly always the best at solving objective (real/factual/measurable) problems. Objective and subjective distinctions are vital to any academic discussion. Feel free to address subjective points, but remember that these points are true only to you. For example, if you like strawberry ice-cream, it is not wrong for someone else to prefer chocolate. In objective observations, truth is universal. If you think that it is over 370,000km to the moon, it is indeed wrong if someone prefers the idea that it is 37m.

Okay, to use the Scientific Method:

1) Fact gathering. This is the observation phase. You must start with a factual and demonstrable observation. In the case of, say, UFOs, many people are highly insulted that they are called ‘mistaken.’ But the Scientific Method is unconcerned with hurting feelings, a concern that would jeopardize understanding. In academia, one is a liar until they prove otherwise. This is not an attack on the person, but rather an admission of the complicated way humans sense the world. So any argument must begin with a factual event or observation that can be agreed upon.
2) Hypothesis. This is often the phase that is confused with ‘theory.’ This is a guess; a starting point. A hypothesis is ‘just a guess’ and anybody can have one. But this is just a guess, and everybody will have wrong guesses. Do not be insulted when someone shows the error of your hypothesis. New facts, new observations, and new tests will ruin many hypotheses before a few pass on to even further testing.
3) Peer Review. This is a critical step. The peer review is when an academic has tried his or her hypothesis in every available way, and it has stood up to the most rigorous testing the academic can think of. Now it must be passed around for all to see and for all to judge (by all, I mean people qualified to judge the specific material. Nobody would want a medical doctor judging a murder case). This level of peer review will most likely not happen on this site, but I say, “Go for it.”
4) Theory. That’s right. A theory is the final step; a full three steps higher than ‘fact.’ A theory is absolutely NOT a guess. A theory is a framework, based on facts and supported by all observations new and old, that can be used to understand new information and to progress in the areas the theory applies to. Think of a theory as a class in college, say English. Most of this class will be learning facts (how to use a comma, how to spell antidisestablishmentarianism, who was Thoreau). There will be many unknowns also involved, though (what did Thoreau mean by the path, how do we make punctuation simpler to understand). These unknowns do not detract from the validity of the English language. So also, unknowns do not detract from the validity of a theory. Just as English class changes with new knowledge, the theory will change with new discoveries.

I will do my best to continue to monitor posts on this site and clarify definitions as issues arise. I do beg of all visitors, though: do not be intimidated by the methods used in academia. You may visit here, post here, and discuss here in a respectful manner and practice these methods. You will only improve your own thinking abilities by doing so. Also, to all posters - PhD, MFA, AS, or High School drop-out - do not let the method prevent fun and humor. The greatest quality of academia is that it is so profound, yet so fun and often hilarious.

*Please feel free to post corrections or additions to my above post. I may be the god of this site, but an imperfect being I am not.