RE: [asa] Is evolution a fact?

Facts are taken as absolutes. The theory of evolution is comprised of
scientific facts. Yet, I don't like the idea that a theory, as a whole,
should be elevated into a fact. Once a theory is a fact, it is no longer a
theory, at least in a general sense.

Because we see change in things does not make what is known as the Theory of
Evolution a fact. A rock thrown into the air changes its motion with time,
this is a fact, but not evolution. It does behave in accordance with
another theory -- gravity. We don't know what gravity is, so can we boldly
say the entire theory is a fact. Einstein greatly changed this theory, and
another could tweak it further.

The Geocentric model was once a fact, and was so for almost 2000 years. I
prefer to see the term "theory" bolstered for what it represents, without
abuse by both opponents and proponents of science.

George Cooper

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:06 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Is evolution a fact?

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 Wed May 28 08:27:14 2008