That is, there is no agreement on how evolution happened (science), just agreement that it did occur naturalistically (philosophy) (Wysong, 1976, p.46)! But before it can be known that evolution happened, it needs to be known how it happened (Wade, 2000). Darwin himself acknowledged that just asserting that "species ... had descended, like varieties, from other species," was "unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the ... species ... have been modified ..." (Darwin, 1872, p.18; Lewontin, 1978. My emphasis). So just asserting that "evolution is a fact" is vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory of how evolution occurred (Johnson, 1993, p.12; Patterson, 1981, p.3), as Darwin himself pointed out (Darwin, 1872, p.18). Indeed, since "any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all" (Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249; Darwin, 1898, pp.6-7), if evolutionists don't know how evolution happened, i.e. whether it was in fact helped over the jumps by God, then they don't know that it was evolution! http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe11fact.html#fctfvltnthry
i believe it would be called the "law of evolution" like the "law of thermodynamics" i see olde axle rose himself is back ( longshot) LOL ! hank
I see -- sort of the the "fact" of thermodynamics, and the "fact" of calculus, and the "fact" of quantum physics, and the "fact" of flight, and the "fact" of probability, etc. I stand by my statement. You are at odds with the majority of the scientific community, therefore your definition of what is acceptable scientific proof is incorrect. Thus it falls to you to publish a proof that demonstrates how the standard of scientific proof has been lowered for evolution, and convince the community to raise its standards. If you do not, then your standard is your standard alone, and your failure to accept the proof of evolution, is the result of your unreasonable standard.
Do we need to go to the dictionary? Just because a group of scientists agree that something is fact, does that make it a fact? (This is not a trick question) Evolution of species as a certain process cannot be known. Therefore, evolution of species is not a fact. Observation of changes produces fact of changes. It is not a theory when a change is observed, it is a fact. However, the observation of change doesn't produce knowledge of the cause of changes, the observation only records the changes. Changes are recordable and measurable facts. Theories of the why or the what which is the cause of the changes are speculations and not facts until they withstand the process of falsification. Since you can't falsify the theory of evolution, since you cannot falsify the speculation of cause, evolution of species cannot be a fact. Change is a fact, evolution as commonly understood as some random unguided and chance happening is not a fact. Lacking a history of all changes which would absolutely link one species in its changes to a new and different species in a cause and effect relationship is not available. There was a reason the term missing link was used, and still applies to this day. Without the observable links, and knowing the linking process, there is just speculation and guesswork, hardly the material of facts. If a group of scientist want to believe that evolutionary process as they define it is a fact, that is their right, but it hardly makes it a fact of scientific conclusion. Take away all the scientists, does science still exist? Yes, of course.
We don't need to go to a dictionary -- I have a more authoritative source: "The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong." See, attached. Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), at pg. 29 Therefore, based on the majority opinion of the most respected body of scientists in the U.S., your position on what a scientific theory/fact is, with respect to evolution is wrong. Your logic is rejected by people who do logic for a living, i.e., scientists. This is the difference between dogmatism and practical reality. In the real world, philosophical logic frequently fails to satisfy. If you're so convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then get a PH.D in a science and start publishing. Until then, I'll be giving great weight to the opinion of the scientific community over yours.
Surf: >...creation speaks for a creator. no other >evidence is needed. Dave, you are a smart guy, but no matter how we got here, that is just one Dumb Ass statement (caps intended and deserved). Zorfing speaks for Zorf and as we have all been Zorfed (and whether we recognize it or not, we all have, because I say so) no more evidence is needed. There. Down with Creation and Evolution. Long live Zorfing -- it is a fact. JB
I had hoped that this thread would be different. It is not. I had hoped that there would actually be a meaningful and friendly exchange of ideas. There was a little bit of that, but not much. Thus far, there has been more wind than substance, more posturing than communication. I think it is fair to conclude that few people will change their viewpoint, regardless of what that viewpoint may be. Gentlemen, methinks we are all just pissing in the wind. Perhaps we should all just cut our losses and be modern about all this by agreeing to disagree. Although I am not religious, I have nothing against those who are, provided that faith remains a personal thing and is not forced or flaunted on unsuspecting bystanders in one way or another (such as teaching ID in science classes at school). I think both sides are overly judgmental. I think that all of the God threads here on ET are a case in point. Again, let us agree to disagree, and get on with our lives. That's it for me on this matter. As an aside, I rather liked the "Zorf" post. Thanks for the chuckle.
The theory of evolution provides one possible explanation, it does not provide proof of that explanation. Speculation is not proof, conjecture is not proof, educated guessing is not proof. Agreement among scientists of what constitutes a best guess is not proof. We know that science has very strict standards of what constitutes proof, and the theory of random chance unguided change has not met that criteria. Really, when a reasonable person thinks about it, this explanation of "random chance unguided change" is just a full admission of ignorance of the hows and whys of the process of change. No one is questioning that change we can observe is a fact. However, to suggest that a change that 'may' have taken place in the past was necessarily a cause of some current effect is not logical. 250 years ago in this country, men like Jefferson who were recognized as scientists believed in the existence of God. The vast majority of the members of the scientific community accepted God's existence as an obvious fact. It was not disputed to any great extent, and if someone did dispute it, they were considered a minority opinion and as such invalid. 250 years later, the majority opinion is that God is not a fact. So are we to suddenly conclude that the fact of Jeffersonian times were not facts but just just uneducated opinions, but today the educated opinions are necessarily facts? Such utter nonsense. A real scientific fact doesn't change, as observations don't themselves change. Conclusions may change as new facts are revealed, but the old observations are not invalidated by new facts, we simply have a new paradigm in which to assemble the old and new facts to reach different opinions. Scientific opinion may or may not be an actual fact, time tells us what lasts and withstands the test of time and changes in data, and unless science has discovered all possible facts and has retrieved all the data, it is not reasonable to act in a dogmatic manner about processes of cause and effect. The scientific community can decide whatever they want as a group, but that doesn't make their conclusions logical in the strictest sense nor necessarily true.