A law is not universally true. Newtons laws of motion are universally false (though usually close enough to be useful). And Newtons laws are not even close to being true near the speed of light.
Laws describe phenomena; they don't require explanation. Theories explain phenomena, even if they don't necessarily predict it well. Cheers, Shane Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of his employer. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James J. Roper > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why not a law..Evolution > > But Malcolm, > > It is not the "Theory of Evolution" that is the theory, but > rather the "Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION" that is > the theory. While most of us would agree that there is ample > proof, it should also be understood why it must be considered > a theory and not a law. A law is universally true, while a > theory is provisionally true. We all can imagine cases in > which some characteristic of an organism was due to genetic > drift or some other form of accident that favored a given > trait. We can also remember th= e Spandrels of San Marcos > (Stephen J. Gould) and so recognize that we cannot call > everything we see a product of evolution by natural > selection, If we do so, without proof, then we are making > assertions of faith. > > So, until we prove that all features of living things are > adaptations that were formed by natural selection....the > theory of evolution by natural selection remains just that. > > But what a wonderful and explanative theory! > > And we all KNOW that evolution happened, evolution is not a > theory, it is a fact, and not a law. > > Cheers, > > Jim > > On 8/16/06, Malcolm McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the "Theory of Evolution" > > and start calling it the "Law of Evolution," and to stop > referring to > > "evolutionary theory" and surplant that with "evolutionary law." > > > > Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution > than there > > was for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status. > > > > Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by > or succumb > > to some outside force? > > > > Sounds like a law to me. > > > > VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org < > > http://www.herpconbio.org> A New Journal Published in > Partnership with > > Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and the > World Congress > > of Herpetology. > > > > Malcolm L. McCallum > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Biological Sciences > > Texas A&M University Texarkana > > 2600 Robison Rd. > > Texarkana, TX 75501 > > O: 1-903-223-3134 > > H: 1-903-791-3843 > > Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on > behalf of > > Ashwani Vasishth > > Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution > > > > > > > > There are two commentaries in the current issue of > Bioscience that I > > thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current > > "deba= > te" > > about the teaching of evolution science in our schools > > > > The first, by Ross H. Nehm, "Faith-based Evolution Education?" (638 > > BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 > www.biosciencemag.org) argues > > that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to > > generating belief statements on evolution, rather than > scientifically > > and systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay > > beliefs and = > in > > creationist rhetoric. In addition, we need to get much better at > > showing people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to > > everyday folks, o= > n > > an everyday basis. > > > > The second, by Margaret Wertheim, "Who Is Science Writing > For?" (640 > > BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), > > argues that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning > > themselves where the readers are, in America, but rather > are catering > > to a very narr= > ow > > (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who > actively > > seek out science-related material. We need to get better at doing > > what she ca= > lls > > "missionary work." > > > > Cheers, > > - > > Ashwani > > Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 > > Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206 > > California State University, Northridge > > http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ > > > > > > --=20 > ----------------------------- > James J. Roper > UFPR, Zoologia > Caixa Postal 19034 > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 > celular: 55 41 99870543 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 > D=3D=3D=3D=3D= > =3D=3D=3D > Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR > http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ > --------------------------------------------- > http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br >
