Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."




In a message dated 12/22/2010 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Spinozalens@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 12/22/2010 8:36:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu writes:

It seems to me that stating either "evolution is a fact" (BW) OR
"evolution is not a fact" (WR) is to be avoided because the word
"evolution", without qualifiers, is too ambiguous.

Perhaps what Bill wanted to write was that, while we may debate the
proper wording, scientists should be clear that "evolution on a small
scale" is a fact but "global evolution of species over the history of
the Earth" is not. Is there consensus on that?

Also, can we agree that the theory of biological evolution (which
consists of natural selection as well as other processes) is, as
scientific theories go, a very strong theory for explaining the "global"
diversity of species?
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


The problem is always trying to convey information to the lay public who
are regrettably often scientificly illiterate. All scientific models are
forever open to challenges to the results of experiments and new
observations.
The creationists have exploited this with" it's just a theory" mantra.
Most
lay people in the United States have an emotional attachment to
the Bible creation story so this kind of framing is very effective. I am
not
sure it's a majority, but many Americans still believe the world is 6000
years old. Certainty a majority of Americans don't "believe" in
evolution.
The state of scientific literacy is dismal and actually getting worst
with
the religious attacks on science education. Even the religious who claim
to
accept evolution actually believe in a form of intelligent design, life
evolves but under god's guidance. The take home message of evolution is
that
life evolves based on natural selection, a process that leaves no room
for
guidance by any divine hand. The fundamentalists know this. There is no
way
to sugar coat evolution, it is one of the great revolutions in human
thinking. To merely accept the process and not accept the underlying
"revelation"
of evolution is to miss the most important point.

Bob Zannelli

))))))))))))))))))))



----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of William Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:46 PM
To: betwys1@sbcglobal.net; Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."

If you read what I wrote, then you would know that I
acknowledge that the process of natural selection has been
demonstrated in the lab. And yes, evolution on a small scale
is a fact. I'm talking about global evolution of species over
the history of the Earth. Not a fact. A reasonable inference
from the data, and hence a good theory, but not a fact.
Scientists should not be afraid to use proper language in
explaining their findings. If you understand science, then
you would properly explain the laboratory findings as solid
evidence for the mechanism of natural selection. You would
not use that evidence to state that the global theory of
evolution is a fact. One cannot prove a theory, so theories
should not be labeled as facts.

We have enough arrogance and condescension in this forum, so
why add to it?

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
Bill Robertson Science, Inc.
Stop Faking It! Finally Understanding Science So You Can Teach It.
wrobert9@ix.netcom.com
1340 Telemark Drive
Woodland Park, CO 80863
719-686-1609

On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:50 PM, brian whatcott wrote:

On 12/21/2010 6:51 PM, William Robertson wrote:
This is why reading and comprehension skills are so very
important. I
never said that evolution was controversial. I just said
that it is a
theory (a good one) rather than a fact.
>>
Bill
>>

>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:17 PM, William Robertson wrote:
>>
evolution,
which is about as controversial as the fact that matter has mass.
>>

> Can't help with the reading or comprehension skills, I'm afraid.

But if you'd care to run an experiment on evolving an
organism over
say 10,000 lifetimes (is that time scale good enough?) I
could share
details of the agar, petri dish, agricultural antibiotic for the
challenge, and incubator materials which are not expensive.

I suppose it's possible to FAIL to demonstrate/confirm
evolution in
this way, but you would need to be really, really determined.

Brian W
_______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l