Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 17:57:01 EDT

  • Next message: Sarah Berel-Harrop: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    By the definition of evolution set forth by the links, the initial debate
    seems to focus on at what taxonomical level did evolution began to
    differentiate life.

    Did creation start evolution or not?

    If creation did start evolution, at what taxonomical level did this occur?

    Any better?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:26 PM
    Subject: RE: Student perceptions re evolution

    >
    > Well, no, not quite. I know you are really trying hard to understand this,
    > it may just be my poor communication skills. The link that I provided
    > explained how Evolution is both fact AND Theory, even the link stated that
    > fact and Theory were not the same thing. Also see the link I provided
    > earlier for definitions of evolution.
    > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html The Theory of
    > Evolution explains the facts (observations) of evolution in a population
    as
    > it changes from one generation to the next. The "competing" aspect of
    > various Theories you think you are seeing are not necessarily competing
    but
    > rather complimentary. Where one mechanism doesn't fully explain what is
    > observed in some instances, other mechanisms can be proposed, but it is
    > still observation-driven. Then the Theory can then be used to make
    > predictions of what should be expected in future observations, that is a
    way
    > it can be tested.
    >
    >
    >
    > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    > http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
    >
    > =========================================
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    > > Behalf Of Jay Willingham
    > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:41 PM
    > > To: ASA
    > > Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
    > >
    > >
    > > 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 - 17:58:14 EDT