[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revisionism
Don, as one layperson to another, more scientifically informed layperson,
let me just say I did not mean definition six. The way I understand it, a
theory has to meet all the criteria of the scientific method before it is
assigned "fact" status. Isn't one of those criteria that something be
observable? Evolution isn't observable, and hasn't met all the criteria set
forth by the scientific method.
BTW, Creationism falls prey to the same thing. This was my point- both
sides, creationists and humanists, are proponents of theory as fact. Both
do it to counter the other. In the process, the pursuit of truth becomes
secondary. That is all.
Please, let's not get mired in these superfluous side issues and focus on
the main point, which was not to debate evolution vs. creation. (Yes, I
believe in creation, but not "creation science." Who cares? To each his
own. The way I see it, none of this affects my salvation or damnation,
unless I deliberately spread false information with the desire to turn
people from God.)
That said:
>From: Don Smith <dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu>
Let me quote the dictionary definition of "theory" here,
>not as an authority, but as a point of reference:
>
> 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
>or
> phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
> accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
You can't test evolution= theory.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
> conjecture.
They do have limited knowledge, but I would never call evolution an
assumption. When contradictory evidence is overlooked or suppressed, as,
like you pointed out, Creation Scientists also do, we are no longer dealing
with mere assumptions. Something deeper is going on.
>It seems to me that when scientists say "the theory of evolution", they
>mean
>definition number one or perhaps number two, but when people say "it's just
>a
>theory", as Matt did, they mean definition number six. I would insist
>these
>are not the same thing. Intentional or no, I think there's a bait and
>switch
>going on here. When a scientist talks about a theory, they don't mean to
>imply
>that it's "just conjecture". Just the opposite. If someone comes up with
>an
>idea that has no predictive or explanatory power, it has not earned the
>label
>of "theory", it's just an idea or a hypothesis.
I've never heard evolution referred to as hypothesis. Perhaps it should be?
Please explain the fine line difference between "theory" and "hypothesis",
two terms I regard as virtually synonymous. (I realize that forming a
hypothesis is the first step of the scientific method.)
>Or perhaps I am misinterpreting Matt?
No sweat! I'm still trying to figure my own self out!
Take care,
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: