From: rogero@saintjoe.edu
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 19:18:26 EDT
> If creation did start evolution, at what taxonomical level did this occur?
On the subject of semantics and meaning of words, Jay, what is your definition of the word "creation"? I think this may be the crux of the difficulty here.
I enjoyed the ASA-published book by Fischer, "God did it, but how?" Science explains the "how" of creation, and the Bible explains (for us Christians) the "Who" and "why". In this context, one can simply say "Evolution is the way God creates." Or to quote another jargon phrase (but a very helpful IMO) "Truth cannot contradict Truth."
Roger
---- Original Message ----
From: Jay Willingham
Date: Mon 8/25/03 17:17
To: ASA
Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
By the definition of evolution set forth by the links, the initial debate
seems to focus on at what taxonomical level did evolution began to
differentiate life.
Did creation start evolution or not?
If creation did start evolution, at what taxonomical level did this occur?
Any better?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Student perceptions re evolution
>
> Well, no, not quite. I know you are really trying hard to understand this,
> it may just be my poor communication skills. The link that I provided
> explained how Evolution is both fact AND Theory, even the link stated that
> fact and Theory were not the same thing. Also see the link I provided
> earlier for definitions of evolution.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html The Theory of
> Evolution explains the facts (observations) of evolution in a population
as
> it changes from one generation to the next. The "competing" aspect of
> various Theories you think you are seeing are not necessarily competing
but
> rather complimentary. Where one mechanism doesn't fully explain what is
> observed in some instances, other mechanisms can be proposed, but it is
> still observation-driven. Then the Theory can then be used to make
> predictions of what should be expected in future observations, that is a
way
> it can be tested.
>
>
>
> Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
> http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
>
> =========================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:41 PM
> > To: ASA
> > Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
> >
> >
> > Then evolution is not a fact but a competing explanation of facts.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:32 PM
> > 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: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:13 PM
> > > > To: ASA
> > > > Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I stand corrected regarding the identity of theory and fact.
> > > > However in his
> > > > definition quoted below, he did say evolution was a fact as well as
a
> > > > theory.
> > >
> > > While evolution is both a fact and a theory, fact does not equal
theory.
> > > Similarly, my sister is a wife, a mother, as well as an accountant.
> > However,
> > > wife mother, sister and an accountant are not the same thing.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Before I contest that issue, I should wait for a consensus
> > definition of
> > > > "evolution" from the group.
> > > >
> > > > Gould quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and
> > > > theories are
> > > > different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
> > Facts
> > > > are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that
> > explain and
> > > > interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate
> > > > rival theories
> > > > to explain them."
> > > >
> > > > Jay
> > >
> > > IOW, facts "in science", are the observations. Theories explain the
> > > observation. As Gould states, they are completely different
> > animals, so to
> > > speak. Gravity is also both a theory and fact. Theories of Gravity
have
> > been
> > > employed to explain the known observations (facts) of Gravity. When
new
> > > observations (facts) are observed, the explanation (theory) must be
> > modified
> > > to account for the new observation. The Theories are fact
> > driven, not the
> > > other way around.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 19:20:42 EDT