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."



No, I meant evolution. One could actually make a case that the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, natural selection, is a fact. We have seen natural selection both in nature and in the laboratory. It happens. What is not a fact, but rather a theory, is global evolution, the evolution of species via natural selection throughout the Earth's history. We have a fossil record (fact) and a mechanism (natural selection), but all that does is make global evolution a very good theory, as you say. So, scientists should present evolution as a very good theory, not a fact.

I agree with your comment regarding ID. Evidence is indeed everywhere you look. Scientists should not argue against ID, because there is no way to falsify it. To think that you can falsify it is to not understand science. All scientists should be concerned about is ID being taught as science.


Bill



On Dec 21, 2010, at 4:07 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

William Robertson wrote:

... I want to make it clear what I'm concerned about. It's scientists complaining that there is an anti-intellectual, anti- science bias while contributing to the problem. Stating that evolution is a fact is one example.

"Evolution" *is* a fact. Did you mean, perhaps, to say "the Darwinian theory of evolution"? While I would agree with that technically, I don't see a tremendous problem there. We shouldn't call any theory "fact," but nobody should shrink from making clear that the Darwinian theory along with its functional basis in DNA is among the best of all scientific theories that we have ... and we have some EXTREMELY good ones.

As I've said many times before, I think the bigger problem is that too many scientists ridicule ID on the grounds that it does not enjoy sufficient evidence--a statement that sounds completely absurd to most people who see evidence for ID nearly everywhere they look-- instead of simply pointing out that it isn't science since it's falsification is inconceivable.

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