Challenging Evolution

Where? I haven't seen it quote otherwise. Is it the quote that you gave? I already explained why it didn't say what you said it did? Did you understand that explanation?

Hense the name, Theory of Evolution.

I disagree with ron that once something stands up to falsifacation it is fact. Germ theory is still a theory even though it has stood up against falsifacations. A theory has nowhere farther to go beyond a theory. (remember though, a scientific theory (like evolution) is different from the common place use of theory or guess.)

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

I understand that you want to debate the idea of evolution being fact, but the article did say that it has not yet be proven. That makes it theory.

I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.

Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

most of the data does not prove evolutionary theory

razzelflabben

I have been trying to find time to thoroughly read this thread, figure out where you are coming from, and join the discussion. This is the first time I have been able to. And actually I have not read the whole thread. Only your posts. So excuse me if I repeat replies you have already heard.

What I want to do first is see if I understand your position.

I seem to be hearing three messages:

a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, I’ll spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.

a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)

a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Which brings me to the second message I think I am hearing from you:
b) The lack of overwhelming evidence for evolution means it is a theory. Because it is a theory, it is not a fact.

Does that fairly reflect your opinion?

Third message:
c) There are three theories on the origin of species: creationism, intelligent design and evolution.

Is it correct to note that these are not mutually exclusive theories? e.g. ID may (does?) include elements of both creationism and evolution. Both creationism and ID include elements of evolution.

Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method. I expect others have been trying to explain some of the errors in your thinking about this.

Now for a couple of quick comments.

Basically, you are right, of course. Science seeks to interpret or “make sense” of data. In principle, more than one interpretation is possible. When scientific consensus coalesces around a single interpretation, it is because that particular interpretation makes better sense of the data than any competing interpretation. Currently, the theory of common descent (aka evolution) makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists working in the field who have intimate knowledge of the data.

(Please note the emphasized section. It expresses as best I can, the actual scientific criterion for backing one theory rather than another. I expect to come back to it many times.)

Again, in principle you are right. All three offer an interpretation of data, and in that sense can be called theories. However, there is another step to be taken before the scientific community endows an interpretation with the title “theory”. That step is examining how well the theory predicts data.

In other words, starting from the theory, what data can one deduce that ought to exist---and does the data that the theory says ought to exist coincide with the real-life data that does exist?

The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?

On that basis we can make the following evaluation of the three theories.

Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.

ID is at best an unsupported theory. It predicts data which may exist, but it has not been established that it does exist. On a more philosophical level, it also fails to explain the existence of less than optimum design in many species.

Evolution (common descent) is a robust theory. The data which it predicts must exist, do exist. In several cases, such data was found after it was first predicted. Some predicted data has not been discovered yet, but of all similar data which has been discovered, none has failed to support the theory of evolution. Unlike the other two theories, the theory of evolution is useful in its practical applications and in directing future research.

Again, you are right as far as it goes. The theory of evolution is a theory which explains or interprets data. The theory of evolution is an explanation of facts, not a fact in itself. However, what you are missing is that part of the data which the theory interprets are the observed instances of evolution!

In short, we know evolution happens because we have observed it happening. That evolution happens is a fact. And it is one of the facts which the theory of evolution tries to make sense of.

Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.

Yes, theories change when new data requires a change. Theories are dynamic. Most theories have gaps and imperfections in them when first proposed. They do not adequately explain all the facts they are supposed to explain. And, of course, they cannot be expected to explain facts which are yet to be discovered. Since facts, data, always trump theory—when there is a discrepancy between an observation and the predictions of the theory, work begins on seeing what amendments are needed to bring the theory in line with the facts.

That is scientific method---to always give priority to the data and modify the theory to fit the data, not shoe-horn the data into the existing theory. That is why scientific theories are always provisional, at least in principle.

Almost there.

Creation is not quite a "fact". It is a Christian (and Jewish/ Muslim/other) belief about why we exist. We exist because God created us.


Our existence, and the existence of the universe is a fact, and in theistic religions, we owe that existence to a Creator God.

(Naturally a person who does not believe in God would have a different belief on why we exist.)

So far, so good?

Evolution is NOT a general theory about how the universe was created or about how life was created. (There are other scientific theories that deal with those questions.)

Evolution is about the historic changes in life forms from which the diversity of modern living forms has come about.

Now, here again we have a fact: it is indisputable that living species change over time, and that on occasion, they speciate (divide into two or more species). That fact is called "evolution".

And when people call evolution a "fact", they are talking about direct observation of species change and of speciation.

Now the theory of evolution seeks to explain how those changes we call "evolution" occur. Can we figure out what is happening when a species changes its characteristics from one generation to another? Why and how do those changes take place? Can we trace modern species back to earlier species known to have existed in the past? Can we develop a "family tree" (aka cladogram, phylogenetic tree) which shows the relationships of one species or group of species to another? All of those things go into the theory of evolution.

Within the theory of evolution there are what you might call sub-theories. Natural selection is a theory about one of the mechanisms of evolution. Common descent is a theory that all living species are related through evolution from a common ancestor. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory about the tempo and range of speciation. Each of these has its own set of supporting data. And as each of these is a part of the overall theory of evolution, all the data gathered in support of each of these, contributes to the factual support for the theory of evolution.

Hope this helps.