Re: Laws and Theories (was Creationists)

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

        More precisely, evolution is neither theory nor fact nor law.
It is a framework for understanding the evidence of the "past" as that
evidence accumulates.  If that evidence, and us, and our memories were
all created last Tuesday at noon, it would make no difference to our
treatment of the evidence in an evolutionary context.  This is the
correct answer to the creationists -there is no conflict, and
"creationism" is not an alternative to evolution - whether or not you
want to interpret your local biblical translation literally or not.
                                        Regards,
                                                Jack

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Mark Sylvester wrote:

> At 20.22 01/03/00 -0600, Greg Kifer wrote:
> > In all the discussions (here and elsewhere - I live in Kansas so you
> > know some of what has happened here this year) I have yet to hear any
> > self-proclaimed "creation scientists" provide one testable hypothesis
> > derived directly from creationist philosophy.  Most of the heat and
> > smoke is involved in attacking science or shoring science up, but no one
> > is approaching the ultimate argument for ANY scientific change and that
> > is quite simply "It better (or more thoroughly) explains or predicts
> > phenomena than do existing theories."  Who gives a rat's rizooty about
> > theoretical disagreements among scientists if it is still the most
> > accurately predictive game in town.  \
> >
> >         Speaking of theories; a lot of talk has been about evolution
> > being ONLY
> > a theory and not a law.  Am I mistaken in my notion that laws and
> > theories address things in fundamentally different lights.  A law just
> > says "this happens" whereas a theory makes some attempt to provide
> > explanation or causation. e.g. a LAW of fluids would say that they run
> > downhill.  Theories of fluids would begin to propose underlying
> > causation.  Almost every single student in my high school and junior
> > college classes believe that a law is a theory that has been adequately
> > proven (sort of a promotion in the philosophical world).  I am one of
> > few people Ihave ever heard express this attitude and I know this group
> > is not one to be shy about telling me I'm full of it, soo..........am I?
> >
> > Greg Kifer
> > Olathe North High School
> > Olathe, KS
>
>
> Very glad to see this distinction appear here. Yes, I've seen a number of
> physics textbooks with philosophical introductions where the story of a
> hypothesis becoming a theory becoming a law as the evidence improves, gets
> repeated. The more informative usage is "law" for a well established
> generalization arrived at by inductive reasoning, and "theory" for the
> model (arrived at by inspiration or whatever) from which the laws can be
> predicted by deductive reasoning. Gas "laws" vs kinetic "theory" is an
> excellent illustration. Of course the categories don't remain clear-cut as
> you go further into the question, but the distinction is very good for
> characterizing two distinct modes in which scientists operate. Not just
> scientists - a lot of what's been said about "scientific methods" applies
> to all kinds of knowledge-seeking behaviour.
>
> So when people say to me that evolution is a theory, I say yes! A
> remarkably good one too!
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
> Mark Sylvester
> United World College of the Adriatic,
> 34013 Duino TS, Italy.
> _____________________________________