Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
The article is by Laurence Moran, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry, University of Toronto. He got his Ph.D. at Princeton University.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is a fact, and a theory
- Thread starter Agnostic75
- Start date
I concur.
(I hope that won't cause him to lose credibility.)
(I hope that won't cause him to lose credibility.)
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Unfortunately, you can't correct ignorance if it's willful. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, etc.
That's just a theory. It's not a fact.
Skwim
Veteran Member
See! He (she? can't tell with the clothing) can't lead the horse to water! Thus proving that evolution is not a theory.Oh yeah!
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Define "lead".
Cause it does not appear to me that the individual is "leading" so much as attempting to drag...
Skwim
Veteran Member
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Let me correct the document. Evolution is a fact, a theory, and a model. The fact part is the part that we see, the change in allele frequency over time. The theory part is how that happens and the model part is the Darwinism of common descent.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Aside from some of your wording, I'd say that's a fair assessment. Although the model is part of the theory.
Evolution is not really a "fact", simply because a "fact" is by definition some specific "thing" (e.g., a proposition such as "either it is raining or it isn't" or "the moon is made of green cheese") which is by definition true. I can certainly say "the moon is made of green cheese, and that's a fact" but it is not because it is not true. Evolution as used in the sciences is not a coherent enough concept (or, more technically, involves to many distinct models for diverse processes, some of which conflict or are "incomplete") to be called a fact. There are too many "parts" and "fuzzy" areas to say "evolution is a fact" because one with the appropriate knowledge can ask "what does it assert such that you can say "it" is a fact?" and then tear apart any answer not by "disproving" or in anyway falsifying evolution, but simply showing that some specific model, theory, etc., which is part of evolution research is in contrast to another, or has both proponents and critics, or is generally not that well understood.
Unfortunately, too many proponents of something like Intelligent Designed have capitalized on this in the same way that they and others have capitalized on how "theory" is used in common parlance, and exploited both as if either in any way made evolution somehow less "proven" than the theory that the brain is the organ responsible for conceptual processing, or that Newtonian physics is incorrect. Evolution is understood far better than the brain, than subatomic physics, than the climate, than cosmology, or any number of other research areas, including some which are used by certain types of theist (and deist) creationists as evidence for a designer.
Also, model and theory can't be divided like this:
Models explain how something happens. So do theories. They are often the same. The difference tends to be that certain theories are so broad and/or used so frequently by so many different scientists (e.g., the theory of evolution or quantum theory or the general theory of relativity) that they are not one specific theory at all, because there is no single model. That's pretty much why evolution isn't a "fact" in the same way quantum theory isn't a "fact": too many models (which do not necessarily conflict, but may explain different processes or aspects) fall under a single designation.
Last edited:
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Let me explain why that answer is unsatisfactory. A scientific theory is the strongest definition of something that is testable and repeatable. The theory of electricity, or gravity as examples. Now a model is not as strong as a theory, such as the creation model for example. So theories and models don’t mix. If there is a change in allele frequency that can be observed and duplicated in the lab, then a scientific theory can be made to describe it. That is where the theory of evolution stops and the model of common descent picks up.
Last edited:
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I think I understand what you are saying and I have argued that until I am blue in the face. However the definition of evolution has been dumbed down enough so that it can be called a fact. The definition of evolution over the years has changed to make it a stronger argument, and I am merely going with the flow. Let me try to explain what I am talking about. If I said that creation was a fact, then what comes to mind? For most people I would say God “poofing” creatures into existence out of nothing. Now if I said that the definition of creation is the universe came into existence, well science accepts that the universe came into existence, so creation is a fact. See how that works?
Same thing with evolution, 200 years ago, when Darwin first came up with the ToE, there were no known changes in allele frequencies and the definition meant common descent of all creatures. Now it merely means a change in allele frequency.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
except that the idea of evolution was around long before Darwin.
Anaximander 610 – c. 546 BC
Last edited by a moderator:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Um, no. A theory isn't just a "definition", it is an explanation of something which utilizes a model.
Both of which propose models that explain their respective phenomena.
You seem to be very confused about what a theory is. Theories don't just describe things, they test them. How can you test something without a model of how it works?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it's not been dumbed down. Would you ever catch yourself saying "gravity is a fact"? If you would, does that mean that you believe every model and prediction made in the theory of gravity is a fact? No, it means that gravity - the actual force, not the theory that explains it - is observed and known to you. It's exactly the same with evolution.
Firstly, Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution.
Secondly, the definition hadn't "changed". Darwin simply observed that things reproduced with variation, but he did not know the mechanism. Once we observed and understood the mechanism, we referred to the process by which it occurs as "evolution". There was no moving of goalposts, as in your analogy. It's just what the process came to be called.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
Do you accept macro evolution?
Wikipedia says the following:
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[18][19]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]
Last edited: