I can understand the creationists misunderstanding or (with deference to Paul Smith) even purposely misrepresenting the difference between a theory and a fact and saying that since evolution is "just" a theory, it is less than a fact. But that does not excuse scientists, who should know better, from agreeing that theories and facts are on a continuum. I think that they have fallen into the trap of allowing the creationists to define the terms of the debate. I have the hubris to still think that my account of the relationship between theory and fact is closer to the ideal of scientific reasoning than Lewontin. Dr. Dini, the one who started the whole thing, at least had the good sense to refer to it as a unifying principle and not a fact. That didn't stop one of his students, being quoted in the article, from saying that, "In science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you can get." Now I think a statement like that is enough evidence of a misunderstanding of science for me to refuse a letter of recommendation. ;-)
Rick -----Original Message----- From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:22 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: letters of recommendation and 'belief' in evolution: warning Hi On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Rick Froman wrote: > I think my points still stand which are: 1) scientists don't > "believe" in theories. They find them to be useful constructs > for explaining empirical observations and suggesting new > hypotheses. As you point out, Einstein's relativity theory > did not invalidate all aspects of Newtonian mechanics but > turned out to be a better explanation of empirical > observations and produced unique hypotheses that have also > been supported through controlled, empirical observations. 2) > It is not a scientific value to require belief in a > particular theory to be accepted into the professional field > of science no matter how strongly it may be affirmed by the > present crop of scientists. 3) No amount of evidence moves > something from a theory to a fact. They are two different > categories. Some theories are certainly more well-supported > by the existing evidence than others are. Theories explain > and organize facts and produce testable hypotheses; they > don't become facts. Even if we were to grant Rick these points, they do NOT resolve the current issue. Here is Lewontin on the question of the status of evolution ... clearly he thinks that evolution is a fact that cannot be denied by a "person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world." ------------------------------------------------------ - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. ------------------------------------------------------------ Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
