My sense is that it is pretty much a done deal, with a remarkably
explanatory framework that spans orders of magnitude of biological
functionality with essentially uniform satisfaction.
My qualifications, though, are to be sure those of an aware listener,
rather than a researcher in the field. But as I listen to the
arguments, and assess them against my framework of reasonableness and
understanding, the evolutionary explanation is truly remarkable in its
elegant simplicity and enormously consequential and largely provable
implications. It is reamarkable as well as that grand overarching
theory that explains at least one way in which things complex and/or
varied can arise from things simpler. The continuing confirmation of
predictions doesn't hurt either. The only problem of extending
evolution backward in time is that we cannot directly access the entire
timeline. However, what evidence (continuously mounting evidence) we
are
able to access fits the model well. Moreover, we can look at
evolution at work with very rapid generational turnover in our tiniest
organisms, and there as well, we find little if any departure from what
the theory/law predicts. These "laws" are really about being
"sufficiently persuasive" in their reliability and powers of
explanation, and this baby "quacks", "waddles", and "swims", exhibiting
behavior that is sufficiently persuasive to me, but more importantly,
to the vast majority of workers in the sciences. It does not seem at
all presumptuous to think of the state of understanding of this type of
behavior as approaching, if not encompassing the satisfaction of
requirements to be considered "law".
With respect to completeness, would you agree that certain parts of
gravitation are likewise unknown? Yet its behavior is observable,
quantifiable, and reliable enough to regard the equations that
represent those behaviors as law. What we accept as facts (aside from
perhaps some of the event type) are rarely without starting assumption
(faith in them, if you will) and knowledge gaps. So the mere existence
of some gaps in our knowledge of evolution alone would not appear to
suffice for disallowing "fact" status.
Or so it seemeth to me....
Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
What do you all think? I keep hearing some say that "evolution is a
fact." I don't think so. Evolution is a grand overarching theory to
explain how everything complex came from something very simple. How can
it be a fact when certain parts are unknown, such as "origin of life."
Therefore, isn't it an obvious error to say that "evolution is a fact?"
I think Dawkins calls it a fact, as well as an evolutionary Christian I
heard the other day in a DVD.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 20:46:41 2008