But the whole point is that the theory of evolution CAN'T describe the underlying mechanism or it would be a different theory.
As an example, newtons law of gravity. It was superseded by a broader theory of general relativity which not only describes gravity but other interactions. What it doesn't describe is quantum mechanics. But even if we discover a grand unification theory for all physical phenomena, we STILL wouldn't know the underlying mechanism behind that. So what's to disagree on? The theory of evolution is a fact forever and ever, end of story period. Our physical world will never understand the underlying mechanisms. On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are two things happening here. the theory, which is a scientific > construct attempting to model the natural phenomenon of evolution. Then there > is evolution or the action of variation in allels over time. I'm trying to be > as careful as I can here with my wording, but it is difficult to condense. > > Except for a few extreme YEC adherents, even the majority of creationists > acknowledge that evolution itself happens (read what the ICR or Discovery > Institute says about micro- vs macro-evolution). What they typically disagree > with is the mechanism behind evolution. > >> But that's like saying an iPhone is a fact but the description isn't. >> >> Maybe the miss here is that a theory describes interaction and makes >> predictions about other facts. >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are two things goin on here, the THEORY of evolution and the >> FACT of evolution. The theory tries to explain the mechanism involved. >> That's the scientific theory. The fact is that evolution happens, it >> is the change of allels over time. That is reality. >>> >>>> Very true. but evolution is one of the most studied, and verified, >> theories >>>> in science. As theories go, it's pretty rock solid. >>>> >>>> But Sam is right, anyone who calls evolution a "fact" should >> probably be >>>> corrected....after all, if we are going to hold people accountable >> for >>>> discounting evolution as a "theory" because they don't understand >> the true >>>> scientific meaning of the word, then WE must be sure to hold our >> words to >>>> their scientific meanings as well. Evolution is not a scientific >> fact, it is >>>> a scientific theory. >>>> >>>> Sam knows full well the weight that scientific theory holds, and >> he's never >>>> doubted or debated against it....he just questions the validity of >> calling >>>> it a "fact", and semantically and scientifically speaking, he's >> right. >>>> >>>> So if we can just clear up these silly semantics, i don't think >> there is any >>>> disagreement here. >>> >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342875 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
