Re: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

Its not just ancient history. A scientific fact from not very long ago:

Emil Fischer, who invented organic chemistry, said "there are no carbon
chains longer than 40". That was scientific fact at the time. He didn't
know about biochemistry and macromolecules. [Ref: As I recall the reference
is from Wayne M. Becker's , World of the Cell]

My chem profs tell me a phenomena isn't considered a scientific fact until
it is observed. That correlates 100% with what Moorad has been saying.

Contrast this with ordinary common facts (example: GW Bush was president of
the united states for all of 2004). This latter is immutable, as are all
common facts. Scientific facts are tentative and change over time.

Historical facts could have been observations. But go back far enough and
there are no recoreded observations. Those facts are inferences only. But
they still might be tentative. Which is why they are scientific.

So the Cobb County folks, who had a sticker that said evolution is a
theory, not a fact, really just meant it is tentative, not immutable. But
the court would not allow that. That is idiocy incarnate. This is why it
is important for you ASA folks to discuss macroevolution. Has
macroevolution been observed? I'd say no. To me it is tentative. It is
*not* a common fact and is *not* immutable. That is all the Cobb County
board was trying to say. But because they are inept, well, now its illegal
to say it.

Somehow I expect David Campbell to assert macroevolution has been observed
(either in the lab or in the wild). But gee, wouldn't that have been the
real answer to give Cameron instead of arguing that trying to observe a
mechanism is absurd? (who argued that anyway?) That latter is not a
sufficient answer to Cameron.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Moorad said:
> " Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact? When
> are they the same and when different?"
>
> Facts are pieces of data to which you use to infer other facts or to form
> opinions. A 'scientific fact' is based on science, and 'historical fact'
> is based on history.
>
> A scientific fact from ancient history, now known to be wrong:
> Geocentricity
>
> It is replaced with the modern scientific fact called heliocentricity.
>
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:22 AM
> To: Jack; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact? When are
> they the same and when different?
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jack [drsyme@verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:33 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> I dont know about it being brilliant. He spends a lot of time talking
> about how evolution isnt a "theory" its a fact, when we all know that the
> word theory has more meanings than the sense that he is using it.
>
> I also bristle a bit at his suggestions on what preachers should preach
> about. This is disingenuous isnt it? What he really wants is for there to
> be no church, no preachers, and no religion. Perhaps he wants the preachers
> to say that the existence of Adam and Eve isnt factual just to create
> dissension, not to spread truth. Since evolution does not necessarily
> negate the historicity of Adam he is straying to far from his area of
> expertise here.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Roberts<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:
> christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:
> asa@calvin.edu> ; acg@list.dordt.edu<mailto:acg@list.dordt.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:04 PM
> Subject: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> No, I am not joking. There was an absolutely brilliant article in The Times
> today on the menace of creationism. Excellent stuff, not one attack on
> Christianity. It does have a few necessary comments on bishops and clergy
> put in an understatement.
>
> Ii is on http://tinyurl.com/nhgu7m
>
> Michael
>
>
> 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 Thu Aug 27 13:49:37 2009