Dana
>Geez, get a life , it was a joke...
>
>Trust me I know what a theory is.
>
> _____
>
>From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:08 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>You misunderstand the definition of theory. Stephen J. Gould 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
>
>Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other
>words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an
>idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
>Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable
>doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process
>that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by
>those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing
>to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that
>bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no
>alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical
>examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about
>evolutionary mechanisms.
>- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light
>of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in
>Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix
>AZ 1983
>
>--
>
>In other words until you understand the tools are you qualified to even
>discuss this on an intelligble basis? If so then please explain how Alien
>Abductionists seeded the planet, taking into account current data and how
>this theory of yours is a better fit to the data than current theories.
>
>larry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Schuster, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:00 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>Last time I checked it was still the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Proof of
>Evolution"
>
>
>Does that mean I can teach the "Theory of Alien Planet Seedings" as well?
>
> _____
>
>From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:53 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>
>Jeez, are they gonna go back to the rule of thumb as well?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:41 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>I used to live in Georgia. I stress "used to".
>
>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html
><http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>
><http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>
><http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>
>
>- Jim
> _____
> _____
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
