From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 16:40:46 EDT
Then evolution is not a fact but a competing explanation of facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Student perceptions re evolution
> > -----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 - 16:41:51 EDT