Re: Evolution as fact

Mr. E (jackechs@EROLS.COM)
Wed, 6 Mar 1996 06:21:54 -0500

At 02:45 AM 03/06/96 EST, Deus Ex Machina wrote:

>It occurs to me that if one wishes to practice science "properly" one
>must as a necessary course accept certain principles and premises as
>fact. In light of this when you look at science it is seen that
>all learning always comes in the theoretical. However it should be noted
>that when the word "theory" or even "hypothesis" is used in the
>scientific arena both terms take on very different meanings than their
>colloquial usuage. This I think is basic knowledge for most students of
>science.

If Darwin followed that premise and excepted the scientific views of his
time, we wouln't be having this debate ... not to mention; Einstein,
Hawkins, Leakey, etc. There has been a prevaling fact in every generation
... if someone didn't guestion it ... look into it thoroughly ... well the
Earth would still be flat, at the center of the universe, etc. Personally,
I do not doubt evolution at all ... but the theories or other assumptions
based on evidence that cannot be proved without actually being there, I
believe is open to question ... at worse the standing theory/opinion will
stand the test of debate or something closer to the truth or fact will be
found. To except science unequivically is no different than a religious
individuals unwaving faith in God/Goddess/Whatever.

>As to the "factualness" of anything it was demonstrated by AJ Ayer that
>there isn't anything in the "real world" that is 100% certain, factual,
>or provable. Therefore it can be said there isn't anything which is
>actual or factual just probable. Given this then it can be said that
>evolution is highly probable. If when we classify things as fact
>we do it based on probability of occurence then evolution must be
>included and I think that it is clear that we base the qualification
>of fact on probability. I find it interesting to note that modern
>biology is based on the idea of evolution yet we still can't agree on
>whether evolution happened or not. If we use the same argument against
>other fields of science that we use against evolution can science
>continue to exist? I doubt it. Evolution is fact plain and simple.
>What is at question here as some others on the List serve have said
>is not whether evolution is fact rather is natural selection fact?
>To make the analogy to volcanology we know volcanoes erupt, we are only
>uncertain as to how they erupt.

A great argument for questioning science ... the more we know the closer we
can come to that ever allusive 100% fact.

>"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
>will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
> -- Thomas Jefferson

Good quote ... though it goes against your premise. Your comment to support
science unquestionably is giving up your freedom to explore/learn to see
what may or not be there for the security of a set way, a path determined.