| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 05:29:17 AM |
| Object: |
God and Darwin |
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
God Darwin
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God+Darwin&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 12:37:06 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
<cubist@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106830983.888553.7910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan W ilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science
observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and
test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim
that
evolution is a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several
industries.
The theory of evolution is t he best explanation available on
how
it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and
explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved,
but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
There is no such thing as "proof" -- as in absolute
certainty--in the natural world:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists
make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely
for a style of argument that they themselves
favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed
to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'." --Stephen J. Gould
"Evolution as Fact and Theory;" Discover, May 1981
In science, "fact" is generally taken to mean "a hypothesis that
has
been so strongly confir med by evidence, that it would be stoopid
to
think it's not true".
Well, maybe stoopid is too strong a word, but yeah.
If you don't want to go by that definition of
"fact", not a problem; nobody's going to hold a gun to your head
and
*force* you to accept that definition. That said, it may be worth
noting that any definition of "fact" which *excludes* the theory of
evolution, equally excludes *all other* scientific theories. Germ
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, *none* of them are
"proven
facts"; rather, they're all j ust hypotheses which are backed up by
mass
quantities of supportive evidence.
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact.
The theory isn't a fact. But it is a fact that germs
cause disease.
As Gould (again) says:
"In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means
'imperfect fact' - part of a hierarchy of
confidence running downhill from fact to theory to
hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the
creationist argument: evolution is 'only' a theory
and intense debate now rages about many aspects of
the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and
scientists can't even make up their minds about
the theory, then what confidence can we have in
it?"
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
And facts and theories are different things, not
rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data. Theories are
structures of ideas that explain and interpret
facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate
rival theories to explain them. " Ibid
Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact. But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge
Why would you say that?
is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory. I have never seen another scientific discipline try
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory.
They aren't trying to divide it. They are just pointing
out the difference. For years creationists have used
disputes over evolution _theory_ among scientists
to attack evolution _fact_. Thus the need to emphisize
the difference.
No other scientific discipline I know of has been under
constant attack and lied about for 150 or so years. It is
unnecessary to emphasize the factual nature of something
which isn't disputed. You don't see politicians grandstand
about the concept of germs being "only" a theory and
complain about it being taught as if the existence of germs
were a fact.
Yet
I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory. We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it. We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows. The same can be said about electrical. We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory. I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
Why do you say that? The fact of evolution is no
less certain than the fact of electicity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 12:00:11 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact.
Right. The theory that specific germs cause specific diseases is not
called a fact. That germs are observed to exist and that the same
germs are observed to be present when certain diseases occur are
facts.
Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact.
But the properties attributed to atoms are observed and those
observations are referred to as facts.
But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory.
Not a bit different than the facts of germs and germ theory or the
facts of atoms and atomic theory or the facts of gravity and the
theory of gravity. The special distinction for evolution exists only
in your mind, not in science.
I have never seen another scientific discipline try
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory.
Then you haven't been involved in much science. It is absolutely
routine and essential in science to keep the facts (what is observed,
regardless of the explanation) separate from the explanation. Science
cannot function without this careful distinction.
Yet I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory.
That is the scientific perspective.
We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it.
There are several.
We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows.
No one knows why anything happens. That is why all scientific
explanations are called theories. Theories account for the observed
facts and allow us to predict things without seeing them, first. If
the theories are usefully true, the predictions match observations,
whether or not the theory is actually a correct explanation or not.
If it turns out that some magical being actually moves every subatomic
particle in the universe as if gravity existed, just to fool us into
thinking that there was some effect we could name gravity, how would
we tell the difference. as long as this magical being was absolutely
consistent. But if it was absolutely consistent, except for missing
the real cause, how would the theory be deficient. It would allow us
to predict with mathematical precision how every subatomic particle or
collection of them moves, even though we had the actual cause
completely wrong. It would still be usefully true.
The same can be said about electrical.
Ah. My field of study.
We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's
Kirchoff's law? I have to check the spelling every time I write it,
but it is a very useful law.
...law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory.
Yes. we still do not know what an electron is, only what it appears
to do.
And we can never know if some invisible but absolutely consistent
demon is actually using magic to fool us, so we do not claim perfect
knowledge, but only explain what is observed to happen with theory.
I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
Biologists may strongly disagree with you. The theory of evolution
may not have the simple mathematical descriptions of electrical
theory, but it is and continues to be just as thoroughly tested
against observations (facts).
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 04:32:05 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41FA7DAB.FF8CB7EE@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact.
Right. The theory that specific germs cause specific diseases is not
called a fact. That germs are observed to exist and that the same
germs are observed to be present when certain diseases occur are
facts.
Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact.
But the properties attributed to atoms are observed and those
observations are referred to as facts.
But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory.
Not a bit different than the facts of germs and germ theory or the
facts of atoms and atomic theory or the facts of gravity and the
theory of gravity. The special distinction for evolution exists only
in your mind, not in science.
I have never seen another scientific discipline try
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory.
Then you haven't been involved in much science. It is absolutely
routine and essential in science to keep the facts (what is observed,
regardless of the explanation) separate from the explanation. Science
cannot function without this careful distinction.
Yet I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory.
That is the scientific perspective.
We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it.
There are several.
We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows.
No one knows why anything happens. That is why all scientific
explanations are called theories. Theories account for the observed
facts and allow us to predict things without seeing them, first. If
the theories are usefully true, the predictions match observations,
whether or not the theory is actually a correct explanation or not.
If it turns out that some magical being actually moves every subatomic
particle in the universe as if gravity existed, just to fool us into
thinking that there was some effect we could name gravity, how would
we tell the difference. as long as this magical being was absolutely
consistent. But if it was absolutely consistent, except for missing
the real cause, how would the theory be deficient. It would allow us
to predict with mathematical precision how every subatomic particle or
collection of them moves, even though we had the actual cause
completely wrong. It would still be usefully true.
The same can be said about electrical.
Ah. My field of study.
Really, I'm an electrical engineer by training MsEE , but I haven't
worked in the field for years. My company promoted me to
management, which I find less challenging and less rewarding.
It's probably a good thing though, because thing have changed
so drastically in the electrical/electronics field, I would be outmoded.
Most of the wholesale electronics houses are gone in my neck of
the woods. Even Radio Shack has only a few discrete components,
even integrated circuits are rare.
We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's
Kirchoff's law? I have to check the spelling every time I write it,
but it is a very useful law.
I obviously misspelled it, so my spellchecker gave it the present
spelling. I should have looked it up!
<snip> --
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 05:40:28 PM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
Really, I'm an electrical engineer by training MsEE , but I haven't
worked in the field for years. My company promoted me to
management, which I find less challenging and less rewarding.
It's probably a good thing though, because thing have changed
so drastically in the electrical/electronics field, I would be outmoded.
Most of the wholesale electronics houses are gone in my neck of
the woods. Even Radio Shack has only a few discrete components,
even integrated circuits are rare.
I have a BsEE with a background in electronic design, but have worked
in an industrial maintenance job for a long time and electronics
turned back into a hobby. Just in the last few years I have gotten
the chance to get paid to design electronics, again, and I am
struggling to get somewhere close to up to date. I also spend a lot
of time in sci.electronics.basics teaching the fundamentals to
beginners. And I hang out in sci.electronics.design to learn from the
best.
But I am an amateur in all branches of science from astronomy to
biology.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
29 Jan 2005 02:10:56 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41FACD6C.CC2E2FBB@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
Really, I'm an electrical engineer by training MsEE , but I haven't
worked in the field for years. My company promoted me to
management, which I find less challenging and less rewarding.
It's probably a good thing though, because thing have changed
so drastically in the electrical/electronics field, I would be outmoded.
Most of the wholesale electronics houses are gone in my neck of
the woods. Even Radio Shack has only a few discrete components,
even integrated circuits are rare.
I have a BsEE with a background in electronic design, but have worked
in an industrial maintenance job for a long time and electronics
turned back into a hobby. Just in the last few years I have gotten
the chance to get paid to design electronics, again, and I am
struggling to get somewhere close to up to date. I also spend a lot
of time in sci.electronics.basics teaching the fundamentals to
beginners. And I hang out in sci.electronics.design to learn from the
best.
But I am an amateur in all branches of science from astronomy to
biology.
That's great, you sound like an all 'round well versed guy.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
30 Jan 2005 02:26:04 AM |
|
|
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I have a BsEE with a background in electronic design, but have worked
in an industrial maintenance job for a long time and electronics
turned back into a hobby. Just in the last few years I have gotten
the chance to get paid to design electronics, again, and I am
struggling to get somewhere close to up to date. I also spend a lot
of time in sci.electronics.basics teaching the fundamentals to
beginners. And I hang out in sci.electronics.design to learn from the
best.
But I am an amateur in all branches of science from astronomy to
biology.
That's great, you sound like an all 'round well versed guy.
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
31 Jan 2005 11:08:07 AM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I have a BsEE with a background in electronic design, but have worked
in an industrial maintenance job for a long time and electronics
turned back into a hobby. Just in the last few years I have gotten
the chance to get paid to design electronics, again, and I am
struggling to get somewhere close to up to date. I also spend a lot
of time in sci.electronics.basics teaching the fundamentals to
beginners. And I hang out in sci.electronics.design to learn from the
best.
But I am an amateur in all branches of science from astronomy to
biology.
That's great, you sound like an all 'round well versed guy.
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
Care to join my Association of Pretentious Sophomores?
Our motto: "We teach grandmothers how to suck eggs."
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 44 years."
nnooeelliiee@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
31 Jan 2005 11:41:43 AM |
|
|
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Maybe not.
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
I didn't mention anything about confidence.
I bump up against the limitations of my knowledge almost every day.
Care to join my Association of Pretentious Sophomores?
Our motto: "We teach grandmothers how to suck eggs."
Thanks, but I'll pass.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
01 Feb 2005 10:34:47 AM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Maybe not.
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
I didn't mention anything about confidence.
I bump up against the limitations of my knowledge almost every day.
Perhaps you'd like a copy of my book "How to Leverage Limited
Knowlege and Bamboozle People" (for you, only $29.95!).
Care to join my Association of Pretentious Sophomores?
Our motto: "We teach grandmothers how to suck eggs."
Thanks, but I'll pass.
Well, how about:
- The Enthusiastic Yet Basically Hopeless Advocates for
Bringing the Old Definition of "Prove" Back Into General
English Usage [Even If It Gets Some Math Teachers and
Litigators in a Snit]
- The Association for People Who Really Should Get Better
Fantasy Lives
- Organization for Splitting Infinitives
- Support Group for People with Group-Forming Pathologies
Entry fees are reasonable.
Noelie
--
Next waste of bandwidth in [ 12 ] minutes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
01 Feb 2005 02:12:47 PM |
|
|
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Maybe not.
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
I didn't mention anything about confidence.
I bump up against the limitations of my knowledge almost every day.
Perhaps you'd like a copy of my book "How to Leverage Limited
Knowlege and Bamboozle People" (for you, only $29.95!).
Nope. Too honest. I keep blurting out what I don't know.
Well, how about:
- The Enthusiastic Yet Basically Hopeless Advocates for
Bringing the Old Definition of "Prove" Back Into General
English Usage [Even If It Gets Some Math Teachers and
Litigators in a Snit]
Sign m up for that.
- The Association for People Who Really Should Get Better
Fantasy Lives
Mine is sweet, already.
- Organization for Splitting Infinitives
I have been known to occasionally do that.
- Support Group for People with Group-Forming Pathologies
I have those.
Entry fees are reasonable.
Fees? Yikes! I am also tight.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
02 Feb 2005 10:57:20 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
< snip >
Perhaps you'd like a copy of my book "How to Leverage Limited
Knowlege and Bamboozle People" (for you, only $29.95!).
Nope. Too honest. I keep blurting out what I don't know.
Damned intellectual integrity! How do you expect to get ahead if you
can't ***** your way through life?
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
02 Feb 2005 10:25:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:12:47 -0500, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Maybe not.
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
I didn't mention anything about confidence.
I bump up against the limitations of my knowledge almost every day.
Perhaps you'd like a copy of my book "How to Leverage Limited
Knowlege and Bamboozle People" (for you, only $29.95!).
Nope. Too honest. I keep blurting out what I don't know.
Well, how about:
- The Enthusiastic Yet Basically Hopeless Advocates for
Bringing the Old Definition of "Prove" Back Into General
English Usage [Even If It Gets Some Math Teachers and
Litigators in a Snit]
Sign m up for that.
- The Association for People Who Really Should Get Better
Fantasy Lives
Mine is sweet, already.
- Organization for Splitting Infinitives
I have been known to occasionally do that.
- Support Group for People with Group-Forming Pathologies
I have those.
Entry fees are reasonable.
Fees? Yikes! I am also tight.
/cue bad visual about pennies breaking wind.....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
02 Feb 2005 10:24:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:34:47 -0600, "Noelie S. Alito"
<noelie@deadspam.com> wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
I think I know enough about enough things to be dangerous.
Ah, a kindred spirit!
Maybe not.
Their Superior Expertise is no match for our Arrogant Confidence!
I didn't mention anything about confidence.
I bump up against the limitations of my knowledge almost every day.
Perhaps you'd like a copy of my book "How to Leverage Limited
Knowlege and Bamboozle People" (for you, only $29.95!).
Care to join my Association of Pretentious Sophomores?
Our motto: "We teach grandmothers how to suck eggs."
Thanks, but I'll pass.
Well, how about:
- The Enthusiastic Yet Basically Hopeless Advocates for
Bringing the Old Definition of "Prove" Back Into General
English Usage [Even If It Gets Some Math Teachers and
Litigators in a Snit]
- The Association for People Who Really Should Get Better
Fantasy Lives
- Organization for Splitting Infinitives
- Support Group for People with Group-Forming Pathologies
Entry fees are reasonable.
rrrrrrrooooooooolllllllllliiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
02 Feb 2005 10:53:30 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
Dan Wilson wrote:
< snip >
Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact.
But the properties attributed to atoms are observed and those
observations are referred to as facts.
But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory.
Not a bit different than the facts of germs and germ theory or the
facts of atoms and atomic theory or the facts of gravity and the
theory of gravity. The special distinction for evolution exists only
in your mind, not in science.
Right. The only reason we have to explain the difference between the
"fact" and "theory" of evolution is because the creationists are
specifically targeting evolution. If they were attacking atomic theory,
then we'd be explaining how atoms are both a "fact" and a "theory".
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 10:36:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:23:43 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact. Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact. But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory. I have never seen another scientific discipline try
The theory is the explanation for the fact, idiot.
But then you already know this because it has been explained to you
several times already.
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory. Yet
I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory. We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it. We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows. The same can be said about electrical. We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory. I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
And you're stupidly, ignorantly, in-your-face wrong.
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Evolution is called a fact because it is. Whether it is speciation,
change and divergence in fossil sequences, or variation in allele
frequencies in populations?
Why do you pretend that none of these are observed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 04:16:26 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sbqkv0h493uk4e5bqgrn4478jlr311cn5m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:23:43 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You have just pointed out something I have tried to deal with.
Although, germ theory is often discussed and written about
it is never referred to as a fact. Atomic theory is never referred
to as a fact. But evolution which is several orders of magnitude
lower in the scheme of knowledge is referred to as the fact of
evolution, but it is somewhat alleviated by splitting the concept
into two realms of thought. I.e. evolution is a fact and evolution
is a theory. I have never seen another scientific discipline try
The theory is the explanation for the fact, idiot.
But then you already know this because it has been explained to you
several times already.
to divide it's field of study into both fact _and_ theory. Yet
I would look at gravity as a fact and perhaps a theory. We do
not understand why bodies attract. I know of no theory to
explain it. We can measure it observe the effects of gravity
by we cannot measure it's pull, but exactly what it is no one
knows. The same can be said about electrical. We can measure
the flow of electrons, even count them in a wire, we can control
the 'flow of electrons, we can make predictions and check to
see if we were correct. We can design simple and complex circuits
and by using Kershaw's law know the amps in any part of
extremely complex circuits. Nevertheless, we still call this
the electron theory. I believe evolution is several orders of
magnitude below this in the measure of knowledge.
And you're stupidly, ignorantly, in-your-face wrong.
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Obviously, your strong point is insulting those who disagree with
you. This undoubtedly is you best argument! So since you have
nothing better to offer, who should I respond to this?
Evolution is called a fact because it is.
This is great logic. Did you think of it all by yourself?
Danny
{snip}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 05:07:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Dan Wilson wrote:
Obviously, your strong point is insulting those who disagree with
you. This undoubtedly is you best argument! So since you have
nothing better to offer, who should I respond to this?
Who indeed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
29 Jan 2005 02:09:49 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050128170617.15045E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Dan Wilson wrote:
Obviously, your strong point is insulting those who disagree with
you. This undoubtedly is you best argument! So since you have
nothing better to offer, who should I respond to this?
Who indeed?
Sorry, I should have said why should one respond to this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
31 Jan 2005 02:49:17 PM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:SB0Ld.555$BQ2.511@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050128170617.15045E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Dan Wilson wrote:
Obviously, your strong point is insulting those who disagree with
you. This undoubtedly is you best argument! So since you have
nothing better to offer, who should I respond to this?
Who indeed?
Sorry, I should have said why should one respond to this?
Evolution has been observed, therefore it is a fact. The ToE is an
explanation for how and why it occurs. That is the theory that is not
100% proven. You need to separate the observation of the mechanism from
the explanation of the mechanism.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 07:23:52 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 05:03:03 -0800, wrote:
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
In science, "fact" is generally taken to mean "a hypothesis that has
been so strongly confirmed by evidence, that it would be stoopid to
think it's not true". If you don't want to go by that definition of
"fact", not a problem; nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and
*force* you to accept that definition. That said, it may be worth
noting that any definition of "fact" which *excludes* the theory of
evolution, equally excludes *all other* scientific theories. Germ
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, *none* of them are "proven
facts"; rather, they're all just hypotheses which are backed up by mass
quantities of supportive evidence.
Evolution is tautologically a fact because it is the label given to a
set of observed phenomena. The word was coined a few hundred years ago
to describe the observed change and divergence of species over time as
seen by those who collected, catalogued and collated fossil
collections and modern specimens.
As with other scientific terms, the meaning has been refined in the
light of subsequent knowledge, and varies between fields.
For example palaeontologists still use the original meaning.
Geneticists use the observed variation in allele frequencies in a
population. This is a science which was derived from the investigation
of the mechanisms which cause the fact of evolution (the original
meaning). These mechanisms are well understood and have led to
practical applications without which modern medicine, agriculture etc
would be different.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 01:10:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:22:30 -0500, "Dan Wilson"
<willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F87E40.B4A3F064@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41F864BD.F31CC190@rica.net...
Dan Wilson wrote:
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes,
forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test,
repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
Evolution has been observed to have happened.
Many times.
On demand.
Evolving new life forms is an important part of several industries.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation available on how it
happens.
That it happens is not in question.
Then science is in the business of providing proof!
No. Science is in the business of collecting facts and explaining
them, consistently. Those explanations are called scientific
theories. If an explanation can be shown to be contrary to
observations, then that theory has effectively been disproved, but
that is as close as science comes to proving anything.
Then without _proof_ it's disingunious to claim that evolution
is a_fact_! Whatever you call it it is not a _fact_!
You are an idiot. (heavy sigh)
Proof only applies to mathematics, if you want to get technical.
That evolution occurs is a fact. Period. That you don't like facts
and are uneducated is your personal problem.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 07:56:03 PM |
|
|
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact, otherwise it is
a fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 08:43:57 PM |
|
|
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or
events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertio n of verified information about
something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to
have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact,
otherwise it is
a fact.
Nothing in science "proved."
"In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means
'imperfect fact' - part of a hierarchy of
confidence running downhill from fact to theory to
hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the
creationist argument: evolution is 'only' a theory
and intense debate now rages about many aspects of
the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and
scientists can't even make up their minds about
the theory, then what confidence can we have in
it?"
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
And facts and theories are different things, not
rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data. Theories are
structures of ideas that explain and interpret
facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate
rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory
of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century,
but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair,
pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-
like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's
proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be
discovered.
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists
make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely
for a style of argument that they themselves
favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed
to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this
distinction of fact and theory from the very
beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely
understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which
evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually
emphasized the difference between his two great
and separate accomplishments: establishing the
fact of evolution, and proposing a theory -
natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
evolution." --Stephen J. Gould "Evolution as Fact
and Theory;" Discover, May 1981
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cul T Buster" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 08:36:51 PM |
|
|
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact, otherwise it is
a fact.
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mick White" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 08:52:39 PM |
|
|
Cul T Buster wrote:
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
What if I can prove something to be false?
Mick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cul T Buster" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 01:44:16 AM |
|
|
Mick White wrote:
Cul T Buster wrote:
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
What if I can prove something to be false?
Mick
Also a fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 08:45:57 PM |
|
|
Cul T Buster wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist
or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to
have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact,
otherwise it is
a fact.
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
Ah, no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cul T Buster" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 01:46:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Cul T Buster wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist
or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to
have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact,
otherwise it is
a fact.
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
Ah, no.
Ah, yes.
~Fact:
~n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that
~exist or events that have occurred; 2: a statement or
~assertion of verified information about something that
~is the case or has happened; 3: an event known to have
~happened or something known to have existed; 4: a
~concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific
~hypotheses are not facts"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
28 Jan 2005 09:19:15 AM |
|
|
Cul T Buster wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Cul T Buster wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist
or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to
have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact,
otherwise it is
a fact.
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
Ah, no.
Ah, yes.
No. Nothing in science is "proved true."
~Fact:
~n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that
~exist or events that have o ccurred; 2: a statement or
~assertion of verified information about something that
~is the case or has happened; 3: an event known to have
~happened or something known to have existed; 4: a
~concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific
~hypotheses are not facts"
In science the definition of "fact" is more complicated
and precise than this. Further, facts can be wrong. As
Gould points out:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world.... In science
'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
consent'." --Stephen J. Gould "Evolution as Fact
and Theory;" Discover, May 1981
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cul T Buster" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
30 Jan 2005 02:21:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Cul T Buster wrote:
wrote:
Cul T Buster wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=fact :
The noun fact has 4 meanings:
Meaning #1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist
or events
that have occurred
Meaning #2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something
that is the case or has happened
Meaning #3: an event known to have happened or something known to
have
existed
Meaning #4: a concept whose truth can be proved
If you subscribe to Meaning #4 then evolution is not a fact,
otherwise it is
a fact.
If you know something can be proved true, then
it's a fact, otherwise it's just a hypothesis.
Ah, no.
Ah, yes.
No. Nothing in science is "proved true."
~Fact:
~n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that
~exist or events that have occurred; 2: a statement or
~assertion of verified information about something that
~is the case or has happened; 3: an event known to have
~happened or something known to have existed; 4: a
~concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific
~hypotheses are not facts"
In science the definition of "fact" is more complicated
and precise than this. Further, facts can be wrong. As
Gould points out:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world.... In science
'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
consent'." --Stephen J. Gould "Evolution as Fact
and Theory;" Discover, May 1981
Nice quote, thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
