did it better! ;^)
Jim Davis
_____
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>
- Jim
_____
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
