Dear John,
JQ: Dear Forum and Pim
Evolution is an IDEA. Ideas are things that may work but need much
more information to verify that they will work(or did work). A PROCESS
such
as evolution which would have taken millions of years to occur also needs
alot of inforation to verify. Facts are verifiable peices of information.
Evolution is both an observed fact as well as an idea or hypothesis. The
data supporting that evolution happened is quite extensive. The hypotheses
which tried to explain the observations have been plenty as well.
JQ: Can a person without lieing to themselves say that evolution has been
verified? I think not! Sure you can type a long treaties on the
A fact does not need verification. Only a hypothesis to explain the fact
needs one. Do we need more verification of the fact that JFK was shot and
killed in Dallas ? Do we need more verification of the hypothesis that the
CIA did it or the Cubans or the Mafia or .... ?
JQ: philosophical asspects and history of evolution but in SCIENTIFIC
terms the
mechanisms behind humans emerging from multi-cellular organisms over
millions of years is ludicrous! Not to say that the emergence of
humans(and
I think you are confusing the fact of evolution ie. the emergences of
simple organisms followed by multi cellular organisms and so on is well
documented. The explanations of such observations however requires a bit
more work. The scientific understanding of evolution has lead to a
hypothesis explaining the observations and states that we evolved from
'simpler' creatures over a time frame of millions if not billions of
years. To suggest that this scientific argument is ludicrous can be
discussed if you care so.
JQ: other living things) from much simpler ones isn't an area that can't be
researched and discussed. This is what science is all about. However, when
a scientist puts his hands up and declares a area of research as FACT he
has
in affect ended his research. He has become closed minded and cannot
interpret information in an unbiased fashion.
You are still confused. That a scientist considers gravity a fact does not
mean that he is cloed minded or biased. On the contrary the fact of
gravity has lead many people to pose hypotheses trying to explain the
observed facts.
JQ: You can't compare GRAVITY to EVOLUTION in the smallest fashion.
The fact of evolution and the fact of gravity can be compared quite
easily. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution can similarly be
compared. Both try to explain the observed facts in a scientific manner.
JQ: Especially if you go back to the time of Darwin! You can observe
gravity
but real evolution has never been observed. It's an insult placing them in
If you mean that there was noone to see the evolution of species when it
happened then you are correct to a certain extent. But science does not
necessarily rely on direct observation.
JQ: the same sentence! We understand gravity and the forces of the
planets, sun
and moons well enough to put satellites in orbit for years at a time along
with interplanetary travel. Evolution? Wheres the correlation? There's no
Understanding a fact does not mean that one necessarily has an explanation
of the fact. Two different issues. I can for instance use a black box to
predict the outcome given a stimulus without understanding the interior
process. Does this mean that I understand the process hidden inside the
box ?
JQ: application! Do we understand the mechanisms of evolution? NO! Do
people
Do we understand the mechanisms of gravity ? We can describe what we see
but do we have an all explaining understanding ?
have ideas? Yes! Do you call something a FACT that you have never
witnessed,
experienced or have any conclusive information on? NO!
JQ: A fact whose mechanisms are not understood and has not been
witnessed isn't a fact, is it? Doesn't it at least need to be experienced,
witnessed, observed, something?
Of course it is. It is a fact that someone was murdered. That we do not
need to understand the mechanism of the murder or the perpetrator still
does not impede our ability to determine what is a fact and what is not.
JQ: You simply have faith in ideas that have yet to verified. I
guess in
a religous context you could then call Evolution a fact.
No I have faith in observations and 'faith' that science will be able to
explain the observations in a scientific manner
JQ: Evolution as FACT: Faith in ideas that have yet to be verified.
I think you are confusing the issues of fact versus hypothesis here.
Ideas are not facts but hypotheses. Observations however are facts.
Ghould put it as follows:
"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 don't go away when scientists
debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
gravitation
replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend
themselves
in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
some other yet to be discovered.
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of
argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only
mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start
to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact
and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism
of evolution."
Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Regards
Pim