From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 24 2003 - 19:37:10 EDT
Yes, as I thought, Gould treats theory as fact.
If so, to my mind evolution is clearly not a theory but a hypothesis.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: FW: Student perceptions re evolution
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. [mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:39 PM
> To: Asa-Owner@Lists. Calvin. Edu
> Subject: RE: Student perceptions re evolution
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:09 AM
> > To: ASA
> > Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
> >
> >
> > Excellent idea.
> >
> > Here's some ramblings to start off...
> >
> > Perhaps there is a fact proof continuum, with proof of absolute
> > fact at one
> > end and proof of clear falsehood at the other, with theory and
> hypothesis
> > lying in between.
>
> Oh my, I see a problem right there. You do realize that this is
> not how these terms are used in science, right?
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 24 2003 - 19:39:05 EDT