From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 12:42:34 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
> My first objection is that evolution is called both a fact and a theory.
> All that does is cause one to be unable to tell what exactly one is talking
> about. The two notions are smeared together like no other science does. I tried
> to illustrate by the difference of gravity as a fact and Newton's (or
> Einstein's) theory of gravitation.
I have read that talk.origins page
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)
before. In particular the paragraph below does strike me as somewhat
redefining
the word "evidence" for the word "fact".
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.
I have no disagreement with the mountains of "evidence" supporting evolution,
and each piece of evidence can be considered another piece linking the puzzle
together where evolution appears to be a reasonable explanation to me (at
least
at this time). However, I also find the word (and tone) unnecessarily
assertive
for my own tastes and I sense some political undertones in that wording as
well (although I share some common sympathy).
The second objection is that the theory is never given a name of it's own
and then
> defined exactly what it is. If it is a scientific theory, then there should
> be things set down which allow it to be tested in some fashion
> (falsifiable). Instead people argue that one should not even attempt to do such a thing
> --- or (at best) they define an impossible set of conditions.
Perhaps the best models I know of are in the area of genetics with
things like Kimura's neutral theory. That is of course a very simple
model, but there are a number of insights that can be drawn out from
it. Our bivalve expert or the list manager (amongst others) would be
able to explain much better models, but Kimura's model and some
other models in textbooks on molecular evolution are relatively easy to
understand, and give some idea of what __could__ be happening. They do
work on probabilities, which sometimes lead to objections even within
the community (particularly the contentious issue of the molecular clock,
not to ever be confused with an atomic clock).
There is ultimately the problem of the dynamics of complexity. Whatever
mechanisms drive evolution, they occur within a dynamic system. It is
difficult to find simple mathematical expressions that properly summarize
the behavior of dynamic systems and it is also difficult to model them
genuinely. I think the "impossible conditions" stem from these problems
and limitations of our knowledge, but it is something
that must ultimately be faced head. In that sense, it would be better to
humbly admit that the models are a little weak (although some people
may differ in their opinions here). Probably if there were not the exchanges
between Creationists, a little more humility would show its face on that
point.
So, let me say that there is enough evidence to support the contention
that some
> types of evolution seem to have occurred (like observing gravity). Now we
> need a scientific theory (like a gravitational theory). Darwin's was too
> simple and is not completely supported by the fossil record. People now talk about
> neo-Darwin. One should be able to list the theory in a few simple steps and
> then say what one might look for that could potentially invalidate it. Can
> _you_ do this for me, Wayne?
>
>
So basically, you want to have the full 9 yards on the matter. That is a
good conservative position. (grin) Ultimately, I agree that these matters
must be shown and if they are not, that is reason to hold out on a decision
on a model. Sometimes people use that as an excuse to rationalize
refusing to be satisfied by anything, but I understand that is not what
you are saying here.
I would say that the evidence is compelling, and currently, I have not seen
a better model to explain what is known and studied well -- weak on the
details as it is. Evolution has a high degree of explanatory power, which
is a good quality, but it clearly needs further work to bring it to the level
of gravitational theories. Currently, I would only defend that the model has
proven to be very useful in my research, so I currently have no particular
reason to dispute it. If I think of something, I'll let you know. :-)
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 12:43:41 EDT