Ah, a scientific *theory* -- is that what you were talking about. Dana
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:40 -0500, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the best one I have found by Stephen J. Gould. He has put this > as well as anyone else: > > 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? Indeed, President Reagan echoed > this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in > what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It > is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been > challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the > scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." > > 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 > > Here's a similar definition by Douglas J. Futuyma. He makes the > following comment: > > 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. The theory of evolution is a body of > interconnected statements about natural selection and the other > processes that are thought to cause 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. 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. No biologist today would think > of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply > has not been an issue for a century. > > - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer > Associates, p. 15 > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:37:15 -0600, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You got me, Larry, what's the defeinition of a scientific? I'm > > starting to understand the complaints about liberals thinking everyone > > is stupid. > > > > Dana > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151172 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
