Re: [Phys-l] Global Evolution as fact

[Brian Blais <bblais@bryant.edu>]

On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:53 AM, William Robertson wrote:

> And no statement by others is so uncontroversial that one cannot  
> answer it with arrogant condescension, I suppose. I can always count  
> on that from certain people in this forum. Intellect and a solid grasp  
> of the concepts of physics are valuable gifts to offer in a forum like  
> this (and you definitely have those gifts), but they are not so rare  
> that people should suffer pomposity to have access to them.

Bill,

Perhaps you'd understand the reason for responses to you with an analogy which might appeal to your physics knowledge.  Imagine that there was a group of people who would make statements like, "Atomic theory is just a theory not a fact", "You may have seen a couple of atoms in the lab, but you've never showed that a table is made of atoms", and "there is no way that things as different as wood, people, air, and water could simply be made up of atoms from a few 'elements'".  

You respond, well, atomic theory is the mathematical description of how atoms interact, and it is separate from the fact that atoms exist (theory and facts are different), and to say that it is a "theory not a fact" implies that the theory is somehow less than fact (rather than being different) and implies that atomic theory should not be believed, and that there is no atomic fact.  You could have several different atomic theories, differing in details, but agreeing on the facts of atoms.  You'd demonstrate various parts of chemistry, possibly the results of statistical mechanics, etc...  You'd probably show that you can't see the atoms of "wood", although you could in principle show some of the individual pieces that make up wood.  

After a good effort on your part, you find that the person you spoke to is still unconvinced and is still saying "Atomic theory is just a theory not a fact", ...., and you keep hearing these arguments from others.

You correct them again, using the best examples you can, simplifying it, etc...  Then again.  Then you realize that this group is trying to push a description of the world that doesn't include atoms, and in the process violates many laws of physics.  You correct them again.  Then you find that, despite the scientific evidence against their description, they are trying to teach children this!  They are trying to get it taught in the schools with your kids!  You start to get really annoyed.  You realize that the only conclusions you can come to is the people in this are either unable to understand the basic physics or is unwilling to.  

How would you respond if, for the hundredth time, someone in a *scientific* forum that you're on tries to say "Atomic theory is just a theory, not a fact"?  After all of the frustration, one can easily understand that some negative language might come into the response.  You certainly would take a "put up or shut up" attitude with the person.

If one still claims that evolution is a theory not a fact, one has either not looked at the data or, having looked at the data, are unable or unwilling to accept the facts.  Evolution theory and evolution fact are both at the confidence level that we have for atomic theory and atomic fact.  I'd suggest the works of Ken Miller here, who does a very good job of describing the case for evolution, and the problems with all of the ideas about life on this planet that don't include evolution (special creation, intelligent design, etc...). 


				Brian Blais
-- 
Brian Blais
bblais@bryant.edu
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais
http://bblais.blogspot.com/