Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

JRLawrence · 03-20-2021, 03:58 PM

HedonistForever
really don't understand that statement. Your "as it is constantly presented" has me wondering what you mean by that?

Mainly presented by the political left for their own purpose, or by anyone who desires to prove a point by grabbing onto science and turning science into a religion: by more often it is turning science into another belief system, thereby making science a religion. There is not a belief system in science. Science does not address morals.

If gravity became political, would it to then become "not science"?

Yes, of course: we wish that you could understand this.

"If something is science based and evolution certainly is, given that there is always room for additional information to be considered, then why would it lose it's scientific label because it became a political debate?"

Because political debate is by definition, emotional and not inquisitive and problem solving. Political input is historically prohibited from input to the science community.

"Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science"

Wrong, you got it backward: Science (what does modern have to do with it?) is the cornerstone of the Theory concerning Evolution.

" accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science"

Sorry, but evolution is not a fact, which implies scientific law. Evolution is still a theory because it can not be proven as a scientific law can be proven. Evolution has not been disproven, so it remains a theory. It is very, shall we even say exceptionally, useful; but there are still many things that we do not know. As the study of DNA has advanced; many more details have become known. Evolution still is not a fact, but It has changed since my time in college: note my discussion of the new kingdoms, and there is much discussion about the use of "kingdom".

evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines,

Anthropology, psychology, social studies, and so on, are not considered to be science, even though they may grab the use of the word because it bring a certain status.

"..explanation for why there are so many different kinds of organisms on Earth and gives an account of their similarities and differences (morphological, physiological, and genetic)"

More here than you assume: I would suggest courses in comparative anatomy, and embryonic development.

"In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. "

Congratulation, you have passed Biology 101, but reading the complete works of Darwin, you have not yet begun. Cliff Notes, does not satisfy .

"scientific method is based on observation, experimentation and verification and these have consistently supported the Darwinian theory of natural selection."

Congratulation, you got something right

HedonistForever · 03-20-2021, 05:30 PM

Well, if I passed Biology 101 by stating that evolution is a change in the characteristics of a species over several generations, then you just agreed that evolution is a fact. Leaving humans out of the equation for just a minute, we don't have to go that far back to see and understand that evolution happened, is happening and is a scientific fact.

Now if you want to throw humans into the mix, that's where ( for some people ) it gets a bit tricky but there are only two ways I can think of that humans came to be. They either popped up one day, a man and a women, fully formed because that is what God did or humans evolved over time.

If you have a third explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Nothing you said dissuades me from the idea that evolution is a fact and that evidence can be demonstrated with scientific rigor and experiments, over and over and over again, each time getting the same outcome.

JRLawrence · 03-21-2021, 04:32 PM

I take it back, you must have flunked every science course you ever took. The basic concepts of science should have been taught in High School, actually I got it in the 5th grade: it was a basic science course.

HedonistForever · 03-22-2021, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

I take it back, you must have flunked every science course you ever took. The basic concepts of science should have been taught in High School, actually I got it in the 5th grade: it was a basic science course.

https://www.discovery.org/a/6401/#question3

Is "Evolution", a "Theory", or a "Fact", or is this just a game of trivial Semantics?

I'm guessing in the case of JR, it is the latter. But I recognize that strong impulse in people like JR who would sooner cut off their arm than admit that what he believes could be wrong. Or that there is more than one answer to the question.

This is a interesting read with actual scientists arguing that something can't be a fact and a theory at the same time and other equally brilliant people saying "Oh, yes it can".

There is in here if you care to see it, that when defining the word evolution, there is at least one definition that can be presented as scientific fact and other definitions of the word that can not. JR obviously favors the ones that do not.

Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of some of the scientific weaknesses with neo-Darwinian evolution. In fact, a recent article in The Scientist suggests that, “public discontent with classical evolution as an inclusive theory stems partly from an intuitive appreciation of its limits.” (Eric Smith, “Before Darwin,” The Scientist, June 2008:32-38.) But in this highly nuanced debate, such Darwin-skeptics must avoid semantic land mines if they are to accurately, clearly, and effectively communicate their views. Some people who oppose neo-Darwinian evolution are fond of calling evolution “only a theory” or “just a theory, but not a fact.” After using such a phrase, they are immediately scolded by Darwinists, who tell them that “a theory” is a “well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world” and that evolution should be considered “both fact and theory.”

Ken Miller just wrote a book titled, “Only a theory,” basically opposing people who use such an argument. Similarly, an opinion article recently condescended:

One of the greatest misconceptions about evolution is embedded in the misuse of the word ‘theory’ in its application to science. The common antecedents that result in this misuse of the word are manifested in either genuine ignorance, or disguised ignorance. People are either genuinely mistaken of the word’s intent, or they are well aware of the word’s scientific definition, but still use the nonscientific definition in an effort to spawn doubt. … Evolution, because it’s a theory, is a higher form of knowledge than a fact.

Additionally, earlier this year the NCSE’s Glenn Branch co-wrote an article in an evolution-education journal taking the condescending approach: it labeled those who use the “evolution is ‘just a theory’ line as being “pejorative” and favorably cited a Darwinist who scolded, “To claim that evolution is ‘just a theory’ is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science.”

Upon receiving such a scolding, the Darwin-skeptic who said that evolution is “just a theory, but not a fact” may feel quite bad. She innocently had no intent to violate any rules of semantics or misuse any terms; she merely wanted to communicate her skepticism of neo-Darwinism. In this tangled web of ambiguously defined terms, the Darwin-skeptic is then confronted by a number of confusing questions of rhetoric and semantics:

These are all good questions. In the sections below, I will attempt to answer all five questions, exploring the argument that evolution is “just a theory, not a fact” and providing criticism of people on both sides of this debate, as well as some friendly communications advice for Darwin-skeptics. And

from the outset, I should state that I have always opposed using the “evolution is just a theory, not a fact” line to communicate one’s skepticism regarding neo-Darwinian evolution.

Question 1. Are Darwinists correct to define “theory” as “a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world” or “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence”?

According to the 1998 edition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.” In 2008, the NAS released a new edition, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, stating that a theory is “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Darwinists routinely invoke these and other similar definitions of “theory” when scolding Darwin-skeptics for calling evolution “just a theory, not a fact.” Are Darwinists correct to define “theory” in this fashion? The answer to this question is both yes and no.

“Theory” can have multiple definitions. When I look up “theory” in my 1996 edition of Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (WEUDEL), the word “theory” has 7 or 8 different entries: Question 1: Are Darwinists correct to define “theory” as “a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world” or “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence”?

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Math. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
contemplation or speculation.
guess or conjecture.

According to entry #2, “theory” can mean “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” Similarly, entries #6 and #7 define “theory” as “contemplation or speculation” or “guess or conjecture.” We’ll say these comprise the soft definition of theory and represent the definitions that the average person has in mind when they say, “evolution is just a theory, not fact.”

The upshot of the soft definition of theory is that Darwinists who imply that the term “theory” can never mean that “conjecture or guess” are in fact wrong, because “theory” can in fact mean conjecture or guess. On the other hand, if you’re a Darwin-skeptic who thinks that “theory” necessarily means “conjecture” or a “guess” and can never mean a verified scientific explanation, then you are wrong: After listing these entries, my 1996 edition of WEUDEL elaborates on proper usage of the word “theory” within the scientific community:

1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are used in non-technical contexts to mean untested idea or opinion. The THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serve as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Within technical scientific discussions, the term “theory” typically is understood to mean “a more or less verified or established explanation.” We’ll call this the hard definition of theory. But is this hard definition of theory the only way that scientists use the word “theory”?

When a Darwin-skeptic says “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” Darwinists often pounce and assert that the colloquial or “pejorative” (Glenn Branch’s label) usage of “theory” can mean “conjecture” or “guess,” but scientists never use the word “theory” to mean conjecture or guess. For example, Branch favorably quotes Ken Miller’s 2007 edition of the textbook Biology, implying that there is a united front and complete conformity within the scientific community regarding proper usage of the word “theory”: “In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” Such Darwinist claims of unanimity within the scientific community are also questionable.

While scientists do typically imply the “hard” definition when using the word “theory,” they don’t always use it in that sense. If scientists always meant the “hard” definition of “theory,” then scientists would virtually never use the phrase “new theory” because an idea does not attain the status of a theory until it becomes well-established and verified, withstanding many tests until it is no longer “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.” Yet a quick search of PubMed for the phrase “new theory” reveals dozens and dozens of hits from the technical scientific literature where scientists offered “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural” but called that explanation a theory.
Three recent examples of such usage of “new theory,” where theory represented an unverified idea, will suffice.
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase “new theory” multiple times. The meaning implied by the term “theory” in this case was a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. As Charlton observes:

Question 3. Is it correct to call evolution a “fact”?

A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that “evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion. Scientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms.” The leading 20th century evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr quite dogmatically (and wrongly) claimed that, “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.” Similarly, according to the ardently pro-Darwin U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), evolution is a “fact”:
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words “theory” and “fact.”
U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, PG. 11 (NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, 2008).
What these Darwinist authors miss is that the legitimacy of calling evolution a “fact” depends on the meaning of the word “evolution.”
The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the discussion. Some people use evolution to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of birds’ beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching. Used the first way, the term “evolution” isn’t controversial at all; used the latter way, it’s hotly debated. Used equivocally, evolution is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion. Darwin’s theory is not a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments:***
Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see today are different than the life forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species — changes which take place over a short amount of time. We can observe this type of evolution going on in the present and even skeptics of Darwin’s theory agree that this type of “change over time” takes place. Evolution in this sense is “fact.” However, it is invariably the case that when Darwinists cite some present-day observations of change within a species, they will be small-scale changes that are not easily extrapolated to explain how complex biological features arose.

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This claim became known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as one great branching tree. While this meaning of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with intelligent design, there are many scientific skeptics of evolution who are skeptical of Universal Common Descent.

Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term “evolution” to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for the branching pattern. Darwin argued that unguided natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo-Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that random mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts in a completely unguided fashion. It is this form of evolution that is the most controversial meaning of evolution.

So is evolution a fact? If by “evolution” one simply means “evolution #1,” i.e. small-scale change over time within a species, then evolution is indeed a fact. No one disputes this kind of “evolution.” Thus when Johnjoe McFadden states that “[s]cientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms” and therefore evolution “is as much a fact as gravity or erosion,” he is stating the obvious because he is simply referring to evolution #1.

But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of “evolution.” Thus if by “evolution” one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such “evolution” most certainly is not a fact.

A Closer Look at the NAS’ Mistake

Finally, consider how the NAS defines evolution as a fact:
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, PG. 11 (NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, 2008).
I won’t dispute the NAS’s definition of fact, but it’s clear that unless by “evolution” they mean evolution #1, then there are many scientists who will disagree with their claim that evolution is a fact. However, the NAS DID define evolution as evolution #3, i.e. being driven by natural selection acting upon mutation-caused variation:
In the century and a half since Darwin, scientists have uncovered exquisite details about many of the mechanisms that underlie biological variation, inheritance, and natural selection, and they have shown how these mechanisms lead to biological change over time. Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. … The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.

Much more to read if one is interested and not intimidated by the righteous among us!

HedonistForever · 03-22-2021, 08:47 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut...act_and_theory

Evolution as fact and theory

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".[1] A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]
Each of the words evolution, fact and theory has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution.[citation needed] In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.
Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

oeb11 · 03-23-2021, 09:43 AM

HF - thank you for a reasoned, thoughtful post on the issue.

Whether One considers 'Universal common descent" a fact or theory - is a bit like splitting hairs.

The fossil record in not yet to a point to prove that Apes, simian species, and humans all descend from a 'universal common ancestor" - a thought used by Fundamentalists to decry the Theory of Evolution.

yet, IMHO - the Bible describes '7days' of creation - yet does not specify what is a day, or how a Universal Creator operated. A 'day' could be millenia in terms of a 'Universal Creator."

I personally see no conflict - nor should flexible minds see conflict between the religious story and the scientific method.

Yet those of closed minds still support teh results of teh Scopes Trial, and the DPST godless marxists will define all scientific endeavor and religious activity in terms of their own "Universal Forced Belief system of Marx" on the peoples of America and teh world. They and teh Fundamentalists will join forces - until the marxists swallow all the Fundamentalists up into their AOC concentration camps.

To the DPST's - their Marxism is the only Religion acceptable.

HedonistForever · 03-23-2021, 10:53 AM

I view it this way. If one insists the God created man ( everything ) and God is omnipotent, one can not argue that God couldn't have chosen evolution as that means. To say it couldn't have happened that way would be disavowing that God could have used any means He desired. Or you could just believe what literally every scientist believes, that evolution, at least in one description of the term, is a fact.

But like I said if one chooses to decide that "a" meaning of evolution is that species have evolved and we know they have, it is perfectly correct to assert that as a proven, undeniable fact.

Now if you want to get down in the weeds and insist the fossil record "isn't" complete therefore evolution can't be called a fact, knock yourself out.

Quote:

Kenneth R. Miller writes, "

evolution

is as much a

fact

as anything we know in science." Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of

evolution

has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider

evolution simply a fact

.

Most, but apparently not all.

WTF · 03-23-2021, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Now if you want to get down in the weeds and insist the fossil record "isn't" complete therefore evolution can't be called a fact, knock yourself out.

Most, but apparently not all.

oeb...you just got b.slapped

oeb11 · 03-23-2021, 02:44 PM

HF - i am not splitting hairs with you - i respect your POV

i wrote -
"The fossil record in not yet to a point to prove that Apes, simian species, and humans all descend from a 'universal common ancestor""

i did Not write - "insist the fossil record "isn't" complete therefore evolution can't be called a fact" - i was specifically only referring to a fossil evidence record of human origination/evolution.

That difference - is also part of teh difference between a 'proven fact' and theory.

Let's not snipe at each other :

When fat, juicy, entitled, elitist, arrogant DPST's are much better targets!

WTF · 03-23-2021, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oeb11

i did Not write - "insist the fossil record "isn't" complete therefore evolution can't be called a fact" - i was specifically only referring to a fossil evidence record of human origination/evolution.

That difference - is also part of teh difference between a 'proven fact' and theory.

!

A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas J. Futuyma[6]

oeb11 · 03-23-2021, 04:01 PM

Thank you - 'w'

a shame that evolution included teh creation of DPST's.

WTF · 03-23-2021, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oeb11

Thank you - 'w'

a shame that evolution included teh creation of DPST's.

Is that fact or theory oeb?

HedonistForever · 03-23-2021, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oeb11

HF - i am not splitting hairs with you - i respect your POV

i wrote -
"The fossil record in not yet to a point to prove that Apes, simian species, and humans all descend from a 'universal common ancestor""

i did Not write - "insist the fossil record "isn't" complete therefore evolution can't be called a fact" - i was specifically only referring to a fossil evidence record of human origination/evolution.

That difference - is also part of teh difference between a 'proven fact' and theory.

Let's not snipe at each other :

When fat, juicy, entitled, elitist, arrogant DPST's are much better targets!

Never sniped at you. Sorry you took it that way. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, I was agreeing ( even if clumsily ) with what you said because what you said is the one thing that the "evolution in not a fact " people point to when they are making their argument that evolution isn't a fact. I never thought you were disagreeing with me.

Some times even the best intentions are misconstrued.

oeb11 · 03-23-2021, 05:33 PM

HF - no offense taken - at all

I have great respect for you and your ideas and posts.

sorry i mis-construed -
There is always room for honest debate over scientific, political , or religious differences of opinion -

Thank You, good Sir!!

WTF · 03-23-2021, 05:52 PM

Omg....oed you were being pissy with your evolutionary theory is not fact. HF bitch slapped you.

I agreed with HF....he now sees that a person he has on ignore is using his post to show your pissyness and offered you that convoluted bullshit.

Which is it....do you two not believe that human evolution is fact or theory? Do you not understand that it is so far on the theory scale that it is indeed percieved as fact.

Except to Evangelicals Creationists!

Is that what you two are now?