A FACT? Re: What is evolution?
John W. Queen II (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Mon, 5 May 1997 01:51:21 -0500 (CDT)>To: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>
>From: john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu (John W. Queen II)
>Subject: A FACT? Re: What is evolution?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:40:34 -0700, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>>
>>AC>Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and
>>>going around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican
>>>theory; but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming
>>>that no informed person can doubt it, it is customary for
>>>scientists to call it a fact. That all present life descended from
>>>earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time,is as firmly
>>>established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with
>>>respect to theories about how the process operates. -- Martin
>>>Gardner, "Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life"
>>
>>SJ: This is just another example of Darwinist confusion, bordering on
>>self-delusion, by flexible use of the all-purpose, swiss-army knife
>>word "Evolution". The main problem with the above is that it is not
>>necessarily "evolution"! An Old Earth Creationist could believe:
>>"That all present life descended from earlier forms, over vast
>>stretches of geologic time", yet without believing in "Evolution":
>>
>>
>>Only because the OEC has found it necessary to redefine the word evolution
>>to mean something more. Perhaps the self delusion lies in the need for a
>>denial of the existance of a scientific fact by redefining its meaning.
>>Evolution does not require or deny the existance of a creator, it merely
>>describes the observed facts in a scientific manner. Whether a god created
>>the first organism of life and evolution took over or whether it was
>>chance and thermodynamics is irrelevant for evolution as a fact and theory.
>>
>>
>>SJ: Denton points out that common ancestry is "equally compatible with
>>almost any philosophy of nature", including "creationist".
>>
>>In a philosophical sense perhaps, in a scientific sense surely not.
>>
>>
>>SJ: Wilcox points out that common descent was already widely accepted in
>>the scientific world *before* Darwin:
>>
>>Indeed. Evolution as a fact was already known before Darwin. Darwin merely
>>provided the mechanisms to explain the facts in a scientific manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- wow! The thought of evolution being a know FACT before even the
time of Darwin is an interesting one. So what has the advent of new
technologies done for the FACT of evolution? The FACT of evolution doesn't
need any help from dicoveries made in the past hundred or so years? So i
guess you dont even need to understand cellular processes or know anything
about genetic material to undestand that evolution is a FACT.
> When conducting research it is a good idea to know a little about
the history of what your looking into, but you'll never get anywhere if you
take all of the history as fact. If you do then you don't call it research.
You call this reading(not research). Besides, who believes everything or
even a majority of what scientists said even in the early 1900's? So, for a
modern day scientist to say that he only need 18 th century or later
knowledge of plants and animals to come to the conclusion that evolution is
a FACT is ENORMOUS! Sure I understand that some things are just "fact" and
we have to deal with it (taxes), but should a reasonable person put what
would be the most complicated non-understood process known to mankind in the
same category?
> Saying that people as far back as Darwin had a basis on which to
call evolution a fact makes me a modern day idiot! Call me stupid! It's
almost the 21st century and I still haven't come to grips with the FACT that
my nth removed cousin crawled on his belly looking for food. (dont laugh if
its a fact!) Hey all i need to do is go back and read Darwins notes ... and
guess what?... that's all a rational person needs to come to the widely held
view that evolution is a FACT. Throw away my biology book,chemistry and
biochemistry books(they raise too many questions), statistics and
mathematics, geology and the rest of them! It's a FACT and EVERYONE with a
rational mind knew it was before Darwin!
> What more is there to talk about? Shut down the forum...WHY?..."you
don't know?"..."hey evolution is a FACT. We have a few(thoulsand)
wrinkles(craters) to iron out but it's still a FACT in OUR MINDS".
> It's nearly the 21'st century. Why don't we realize this and talk
about evolution with 21'st century scientific language instead of using
language that came from those who did not have even a fraction of the
knowledge that's at our disposal? Let's acknowledge thier contribution(as
you do in any field) build a memorial and talk about modern day science.
One tends to get merely caught up into philosophical jargon and language
without reguarding real science when treating 200 year old science with more
reguard than it's due. Could you imagine attending a chemistry workshop
that never stopped talking about the research of the great alchemists?
Likewise, let's leave the jargon behind, and hold the "FACT" of evolution
accountable to the scrutiny that the 1990's has to offer instead of
analyzing it in light of 18th century (or later) knowledge.
>
> John W. Queen II
> UT Austin
> Dept Chemistry
>
>>
>
John W. Queen II