Re: A FACT? Re: What is evolution?
John W. Queen II (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Tue, 6 May 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (CDT)>To: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>
>From: john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu (John W. Queen II)
>Subject: Re: A FACT? Re: What is evolution?
>
>Pim-
> The point that I am trying to get home revolves around your
labeling of evolution as a fact. The force that we feel because of gravity
is indeed a fact, we cannot dispute the fact that it is one of the things
that holds us to the ground. At this point we can only study it to
understand it better, how it operates etc. The issue that we are really
discussing is " how did all of us get here?". Let's face it, if we had a
time machine we could go back and see how everything got to this point. Of
course the rocks can act as a time machine along with biochemical
investigations. Should we though call evolution a fact? Do we know for
sure that this was the mechanism that brought all of living things to this
point(since biogenesis for those who are not comfortable)? This is all im
trying to say.
> I have twoquestion. Gravity is a undeniable fact because you can
experience it first hand. My question is this: what observations have led
you to conclude that evolution is a fact..ie..we evolved over millions of
years from other forms of life. What has led you to conclude that evolution
is THE fact and that nothing else could or may have been involved?
>
> happy may
>
> john w. queen ii
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> john.queen.ii @ mail.utexas.edu
>>05-05-97 08:00 PM
>>
>>Dear John,
>>
>>JQ: Dear Forum and Pim
>> Evolution is an IDEA. Ideas are things that may work but need much
>>more information to verify that they will work(or did work). A PROCESS
>>such
>>as evolution which would have taken millions of years to occur also needs
>>alot of inforation to verify. Facts are verifiable peices of information.
>>
>>Evolution is both an observed fact as well as an idea or hypothesis. The
>>data supporting that evolution happened is quite extensive. The hypotheses
>>which tried to explain the observations have been plenty as well.
>>
>>
>>JQ: Can a person without lieing to themselves say that evolution has been
>>verified? I think not! Sure you can type a long treaties on the
>>
>>
>>A fact does not need verification. Only a hypothesis to explain the fact
>>needs one. Do we need more verification of the fact that JFK was shot and
>>killed in Dallas ? Do we need more verification of the hypothesis that the
>>CIA did it or the Cubans or the Mafia or .... ?
>>
>>
>>JQ: philosophical asspects and history of evolution but in SCIENTIFIC
>>terms the
>>mechanisms behind humans emerging from multi-cellular organisms over
>>millions of years is ludicrous! Not to say that the emergence of
>>humans(and
>>
>>I think you are confusing the fact of evolution ie. the emergences of
>>simple organisms followed by multi cellular organisms and so on is well
>>documented. The explanations of such observations however requires a bit
>>more work. The scientific understanding of evolution has lead to a
>>hypothesis explaining the observations and states that we evolved from
>>'simpler' creatures over a time frame of millions if not billions of
>>years. To suggest that this scientific argument is ludicrous can be
>>discussed if you care so.
>>
>>
>>JQ: other living things) from much simpler ones isn't an area that can't be
>>researched and discussed. This is what science is all about. However, when
>>a scientist puts his hands up and declares a area of research as FACT he
>>has
>>in affect ended his research. He has become closed minded and cannot
>>interpret information in an unbiased fashion.
>>
>>You are still confused. That a scientist considers gravity a fact does not
>>mean that he is cloed minded or biased. On the contrary the fact of
>>gravity has lead many people to pose hypotheses trying to explain the
>>observed facts.
>>
>>
>>JQ: You can't compare GRAVITY to EVOLUTION in the smallest fashion.
>>
>>The fact of evolution and the fact of gravity can be compared quite
>>easily. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution can similarly be
>>compared. Both try to explain the observed facts in a scientific manner.
>>
>>JQ: Especially if you go back to the time of Darwin! You can observe
>>gravity
>>but real evolution has never been observed. It's an insult placing them in
>>
>>If you mean that there was noone to see the evolution of species when it
>>happened then you are correct to a certain extent. But science does not
>>necessarily rely on direct observation.
>>
>>JQ: the same sentence! We understand gravity and the forces of the
>>planets, sun
>>and moons well enough to put satellites in orbit for years at a time along
>>with interplanetary travel. Evolution? Wheres the correlation? There's no
>>
>>Understanding a fact does not mean that one necessarily has an explanation
>>of the fact. Two different issues. I can for instance use a black box to
>>predict the outcome given a stimulus without understanding the interior
>>process. Does this mean that I understand the process hidden inside the
>>box ?
>>
>>JQ: application! Do we understand the mechanisms of evolution? NO! Do
>>people
>>
>>Do we understand the mechanisms of gravity ? We can describe what we see
>>but do we have an all explaining understanding ?
>>
>>have ideas? Yes! Do you call something a FACT that you have never
>>witnessed,
>>experienced or have any conclusive information on? NO!
>>
>>JQ: A fact whose mechanisms are not understood and has not been
>>witnessed isn't a fact, is it? Doesn't it at least need to be experienced,
>>witnessed, observed, something?
>>
>>Of course it is. It is a fact that someone was murdered. That we do not
>>need to understand the mechanism of the murder or the perpetrator still
>>does not impede our ability to determine what is a fact and what is not.
>>
>>
>>JQ: You simply have faith in ideas that have yet to verified. I
>>guess in
>>a religous context you could then call Evolution a fact.
>>
>>
>>No I have faith in observations and 'faith' that science will be able to
>>explain the observations in a scientific manner
>>
>>
>>JQ: Evolution as FACT: Faith in ideas that have yet to be verified.
>>
>>
>>I think you are confusing the issues of fact versus hypothesis here.
>>Ideas are not facts but hypotheses. Observations however are facts.
>>
>>
>>Ghould put it as follows:
>>
>> "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 don't go away when scientists
>> debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
>>gravitation
>> replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend
>>themselves
>> in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
>> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
>> some other yet to be discovered.
>>
>> "Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no
>> such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
>> logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
>> achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
>> world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
>> creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of
>> argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only
>> mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
>> withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start
>> to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
>> physics classrooms.
>>
>> "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact
>> and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
>> acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
>> mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
>> continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
>> separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
>> proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism
>> of evolution."
>>
>>Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Pim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
John W. Queen II