John Kulig sent to me the following message that he had intended to send
to the list. Unless I am missing something, he was responding to a post
I had sent, but I believe he thought he was responding to Stephen Black.
Thus, when John states the following:
> So I think Stephen is not quite right to say evolution
> is both a fact and a theory.
>
I believe that my name should be inserted for Stephen's name. On a first
reading, I think I agree with John's criticism of my argument
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
Quoting Jeff Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stephen Black wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Jim Guinee wrote:
> > >
> > > Very often today evolution is talked about as a
fact, not a theory.
> Same
> > > thing with the big bang theory -- I have seen many
presentations that
> it is
> > > discussed as a fact....
> >
> > Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Any argument is
about the details
> > only. Sigh.
> >
>
> We have discussed before the distinction between a
fact and a theory. This
> is how I
> understand it. Evolution is a fact (in that the
evidence is overwhelmingly
> in favor of
> it), and it also is a theory (an explanation): it
allows us to understand
> the
> similarities and differences among the multitude of
species on our planet
> (those that
> are extinct and extant). In a similar way, we explain
the observation that
> the sun
> appears to rise in the east and set in the west by the
theory that the
> Earth rotates on
> its axis once ever 24 hours (approximately). This
theory is also a fact:
> the evidence
> is overwhelmingly in favor of it.
>
> Not even suppressing a sigh,
Yes, evolution (transmutation of species) is a fact
about as firmly as the earth is round (well, almost
round). But the distinction between fact and theory as I
see it is that there are different theories to explain
the transmutation of species. The Darwinian theory
starts with within-species variation (& mutation) and
then assumes that the fit (or misfit) between organism
and environment determines whether you are survive and
procreate, or drop by the wayside. As a theory, it
claims that evolution is a chance process - there is no
predestined plan to evolution. You can have other
theories of evolution, and they exist (but I do not know
much about them - I believe some have less chance than a
Darwinian model, and others try to explain the sudden
changes that occur - for instance Neanderthal's sudden
rise and quick exit).
So I think Stephen is not quite right to say evolution
is both a fact and a theory. It's a difficult
distinction for us to appreciate because Darwin is
responsible for _both_ establishing evolution as a fact
and advocating a theory for it. His contribution to the
theory was more substantial than establishing the fact
of evolution, however, since most scientists knew
species evolved. They just didn't have a mechanism to
explain it.
---------------------
John W. Kulig
Plymouth State College
Plymouth NH 03264 USA
http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
".... I was created in secret and curiously wrought in
the lower parts of
the earth" Psalm 139
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
