From: Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. (panterragroup@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 15:32:11 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:13 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
>
>
> I stand corrected regarding the identity of theory and fact.
> However in his
> definition quoted below, he did say evolution was a fact as well as a
> theory.
While evolution is both a fact and a theory, fact does not equal theory.
Similarly, my sister is a wife, a mother, as well as an accountant. However,
wife mother, sister and an accountant are not the same thing.
> Before I contest that issue, I should wait for a consensus definition of
> "evolution" from the group.
>
> Gould quote:
>
> "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 do not go away when scientists debate
> rival theories
> to explain them."
>
> Jay
IOW, facts "in science", are the observations. Theories explain the
observation. As Gould states, they are completely different animals, so to
speak. Gravity is also both a theory and fact. Theories of Gravity have been
employed to explain the known observations (facts) of Gravity. When new
observations (facts) are observed, the explanation (theory) must be modified
to account for the new observation. The Theories are fact driven, not the
other way around.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 15:34:20 EDT