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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's just a theory. It's not a fact.You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, etc.
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!
![]()
Define "lead".See! He (she? can't tell with the clothing) can't lead the horse to water! Thus proving that evolution is not a theory.
My God!See! He (she? can't tell with the clothing) can't lead the horse to water! Thus proving that evolution is not a theory.
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.
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.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.
The theory part is how that happens and the model part is the Darwinism of common descent.
Although the model is part of the theory.
There are too many "parts" and "fuzzy" areas to say "evolution is a fact"
except that the idea of evolution was around long before Darwin.Same thing with evolution, 200 years ago, when Darwin first came up with the ToE,
Um, no. A theory isn't just a "definition", it is an explanation of something which utilizes a model.Let me explain why that answer is unsatisfactory. A scientific theory is the strongest definition of something that is testable and repeatable.
Both of which propose models that explain their respective phenomena.The theory of electricity, or gravity as examples.
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?Now a model is not as strong as a theory, such as the creation model for example. So theories and models dont 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.
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.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.
Firstly, Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution.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.
Man of Faith said: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.