"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4wLde.4866$VL3.290437@news20.bellglobal.com...

"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d57cnv$oef$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115076862.559510.33960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

tw wrote:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which

most

people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from

common

ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or

even a

mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of
what

are

held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something
known

or

observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.

That's right, a theory is a statement of what is "held" to be true.
Something that is "held" to be true is something someone "considers or
believes" to be true.

Nope, not the same thing at all. It is held to be true because "the
evidence
in its favor became so strong
that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality." You

can

*believe* that the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow or you can
*believe* it is your parents doing it (when it is in fact your aunt).

The

two beliefs are not equivalent, even though they are both wrong.

The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about
natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause
evolution,

"thought to cause evolution,"

I see you're not arguing against evolution being a fact here, rather

that

you are arguing about whether natural selection is what drives

evolution.

just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian

theory of

mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes

of chemical

and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that

organisms

have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the
historical reality of evolution--is not a theory.

Yes it is. The statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors is "held" or "thought" to be fact,
which is why it is a theory.

No, it is a fact, as explained below. Or do you think it is NOT a fact
that
the Earth revolves around the Sun?

It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about

the sun.

Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis,

and

achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong

that no

knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality.

Certainly a knowledgeable person can *hold* or *think* that the Theory
of Evolution is a fact.

..because to do otherwise would be to ignore a near-infinte mountain of
compelling evidence. Which doesn't strike me as teh behaviour of a
kowledgeable person.

No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New
evidence for evolution;"

That's too bad. What's wrong with presenting new evidence to back up a
theory?

I *think* the point is it would be superfluos - like providing new
evidence
for dinosaurs having existed, or the Sun being the center of the solar
system.

it simply has not been an issue for a century.

And yet science remains unable to resolve the origin of modern homo
sapiens.

Only because there are TOO MANY possible candidates. What you're saying

is

analagous to claiming you can't be sure a bullet-riddled body was
killed
by
gunfire because you haven't identified which bullet was the fatal one.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer
Associates, p. 15

I respect the man's work, but I disagree with his opinion.

I really can't understand what the God-Squad has against evolution, you
know. I don't see how it detracts from belief in a creator, it might

make

the creator a bit less hands-on but it doesn't detract from the glory

and

wonder of the creation.

It depends on the believer, I suppose. The priest who taught my religion
class in high school believed that god was ultimately behind evolution.

He

told us that the creation myth was a simple explanation for events that
happened over billions of years and was told in a way that the audience
of
the time could understand.

..which is obviously ***** because if you look at the order things
happen
in Genesis, it wouldn't work.

Jane

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4wLde.4866$VL3.290437@news20.bellglobal.com...

"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:d57cnv$oef$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115076862.559510.33960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

tw wrote:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which

most

people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from

common

ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or

even a

mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what

are

held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known

or

observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.

That's right, a theory is a statement of what is "held" to be true.
Something that is "held" to be true is something someone "considers or
believes" to be true.

Nope, not the same thing at all. It is held to be true because "the
evidence
in its favor became so strong
that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality." You

can

*believe* that the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow or you can
*believe* it is your parents doing it (when it is in fact your aunt).

The

two beliefs are not equivalent, even though they are both wrong.

The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about
natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause
evolution,

"thought to cause evolution,"

I see you're not arguing against evolution being a fact here, rather

that

you are arguing about whether natural selection is what drives

evolution.

just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian

theory of

mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes

of chemical

and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that

organisms

have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the
historical reality of evolution--is not a theory.

Yes it is. The statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors is "held" or "thought" to be fact,
which is why it is a theory.

No, it is a fact, as explained below. Or do you think it is NOT a fact
that
the Earth revolves around the Sun?

It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about

the sun.

Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis,

and

achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong

that no

knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality.

Certainly a knowledgeable person can *hold* or *think* that the Theory
of Evolution is a fact.

..because to do otherwise would be to ignore a near-infinte mountain of
compelling evidence. Which doesn't strike me as teh behaviour of a
kowledgeable person.

No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New
evidence for evolution;"

That's too bad. What's wrong with presenting new evidence to back up a
theory?

I *think* the point is it would be superfluos - like providing new
evidence
for dinosaurs having existed, or the Sun being the center of the solar
system.

it simply has not been an issue for a century.

And yet science remains unable to resolve the origin of modern homo
sapiens.

Only because there are TOO MANY possible candidates. What you're saying

is

analagous to claiming you can't be sure a bullet-riddled body was killed
by
gunfire because you haven't identified which bullet was the fatal one.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer
Associates, p. 15

I respect the man's work, but I disagree with his opinion.

I really can't understand what the God-Squad has against evolution, you
know. I don't see how it detracts from belief in a creator, it might

make

the creator a bit less hands-on but it doesn't detract from the glory

and

wonder of the creation.

It depends on the believer, I suppose. The priest who taught my religion
class in high school believed that god was ultimately behind evolution.

He

told us that the creation myth was a simple explanation for events that
happened over billions of years and was told in a way that the audience of
the time could understand.

..which is obviously ***** because if you look at the order things happen
in Genesis, it wouldn't work.

Jane

Jane wrote:

It depends on the believer, I suppose. The priest who taught my
religion class in high school believed that god was ultimately behind
evolution. He told us that the creation myth was a simple explanation
for events that happened over billions of years and was told in a way
that the audience of the time could understand.

Well, since God is the Law, then it stands to reason that *all*
scientific laws were set into place by God. There is only the one Law,
there is not a separate set for science and religion - the prophets were
only told what they were capable of understanding (which was not much!)

Woods

Jane

Jane wrote:

"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message

I really can't understand what the God-Squad has against evolution,

you

know. I don't see how it detracts from belief in a creator, it

might make

the creator a bit less hands-on but it doesn't detract from the

glory and

wonder of the creation.

It depends on the believer, I suppose. The priest who taught my

religion

class in high school believed that god was ultimately behind

evolution. He

told us that the creation myth was a simple explanation for events

that

happened over billions of years and was told in a way that the

audience of

the time could understand.

I know some very religious people who believe it is possible that God
may have guided our evolution; and as I have told tw in prior versions
of this discussion, I readily accept that as a possibility. But as long
as science is unable to resolve the origin of modern homo sapiens,

my preference will be toward a more unscientific possibility. Both
possibilities require faith in God as our creator.

Jane wrote:

"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message

I really can't understand what the God-Squad has against evolution,

you

know. I don't see how it detracts from belief in a creator, it

might make

the creator a bit less hands-on but it doesn't detract from the

glory and

wonder of the creation.

It depends on the believer, I suppose. The priest who taught my

religion

class in high school believed that god was ultimately behind

evolution. He

told us that the creation myth was a simple explanation for events

that

happened over billions of years and was told in a way that the

audience of

the time could understand.

I know some very religious people who believe it is possible that God
may have guided our evolution; and as I have told tw in prior versions
of this discussion, I readily accept that as a possibility. But as long
as science is unable to resolve the origin of modern homo sapiens, my
preference will be toward a more unscientific possibility. Both
possibilities require faith in God as our creator.