Re: [asa] Is evolution a fact?

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
wrote:

> A theory by definition cannot be a fact.
>

Don,

I have a comment about your posting. But first may I mention Alexian's
above statement?

He said,

"If the initial condition of the universe is the Big Bang and there is
nothing but Nature, then the present state of Nature indicates that man
evolved from the early matter in the Universe. Therefore, evolution is a
fact. However, if you disagree with any of the premises, then the
conclusion may not follow. Otherwise it does!"

I'd agree with him.

But the problem is "there is nothing but Nature" isn't a scientific
statement. It is a philosophical assumption and belief. I'd assert it
isn't part of science. Science deals with the nature that is, but cannot say
anything about reality outside nature. Saying nature is all there is
requires knowledge outside of nature, knowledge beyond the reach of
science. So the above conclusion "Therefore, evolution is a fact" could
indeed be true, but it wouldn't be true "scientifically". If one wants
scientific facts then one must not make statements about matters beyond
science (about ultimate matters).

You said,

> Evolution is both a theory and a fact; but the theory of evolution is not
> the same as the fact of evolution, although the theory leans on the fact.
>
>
Don, I appreciate your view here, but I'd have to ask about the following.
  You see, I don't think the court agrees with you in the Cobb County case.
I think the Cobb County board attempted to split hairs in a way similar to
you. I view your statement as trying to say something along the same lines
as what Cobb County Board members were trying to say. And that was
disallowed by the court.

What about that Cobb County sticker? The sticker which warned that
"evolution is not a fact, but is instead a theory?" This was held (by the
plaintiffs) to be objectionable because it might give the impression that
anything that is a theory might be seen as being some sort of ordinary
theory, the latter which is commonly understood to be a mere hypothesis.
Nevermind that this was only in the mind(s) of the beholder(s). The
objectors (the plaintiffs) allegedly worried that the real meaning of a
scientific theory, which is "so well established that it essentially cannot
be rebutted", is somehow harmed by the sticker. Is harmed by a statement
that a scientific theory is (only) a "theory", and not a "fact". Thus
differentiating scientific theories and scientific facts (which is what you
are attempting).
In other words, a statement such as yours above, which in many people's way
of thinking could be perfectly true, is unfortunately on thin ice. Someone
could sue if you didn't explain that "doubt" raised with regard to a
"theory" *isn't* *reasonable*, and that such doubt itself is in fact not
scientific, but instead is (allegedly) just religion.

Now, I think what the Cobb County board was really trying to warn about was
an assumption about "there is nothing but Nature", but they botched it in
the attempt.
This assumption, "there is nothing but Nature" is the pink elephant in the
room.
Nobody seems to see that schools do not have the right to tell students that
science says "there is nothing but Nature".

I suppose an argument might possibly break out in the ASA about whether
science asserts that "there is nothing but Nature". Perhaps it should.
Some ASA members may indeed believe this. But I'd guess most do not (and I
could be wrong). What I'd have to ask is whether the ASA position could
possibly be that science says "there is nothing but Nature".

I do think school districts need to be able explicitly disavow scientific
materialism as being congruent with science. That is the essence of the
problem. Schools are percieved, either rightly or wrongly, as endorsing
scientific materialism. Cobb County attempted to counteract this
perception, and got their heads handed to them. A sticker explaining the
difference between science and scientific materialism would go a long way
toward correcting this perception.

Best Regards,
Dave C (ASA)

> The fact of evolution is abundantly and most compellingly evident in the
> fossil record: Fossils clearly indicate that organisms 500 million years
> ago were quite unlike organisms 100 million years ago which in turn were
> quite unlike organisms existing today. These changes in organisms are facts
> of evolution and taken together make evolution a fact.
>
> In one sense this fact constitutes evolution even if all the different
> organisms were specially created. The theory of evolution involves itself
> with processes of change when you subtract out special creation. In other
> words, the theory says later organisms aren't just different from earlier
> ones but that they emerged from them.
>
> The theory of evolution is not a fact but is well established as a theory
> because it elegantly accommodates the facts.
>
> (Evolution whether theory or fact says nothing about the origin of life
> but addresses only changes in organisms.)
>
> Don
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:26 AM
> *Subject:* 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 8 23:49:42 2008