Comment Re:Kansas: a triumph of reason (Score 1) 421
> It isn't accurate to characterise this theory
> as "confirmed, Objective fact". There is a lot
> of very good evidence to support Evolution.
> There is no rival theory that has any
> signficant evidence. Religious "explainations",
> especially those of creationists are so riddled
> with errors and run so counter to all the
> evidence that they do not deserve serious
> consideration. So certainly, the intelligent
> response is to accept Evolution as the best
> explaination out there, but it isn't proved
> fact.
Here we go again ... ;-)
When we call something a "fact" in casual conversation, we mean that it has been 100 percent established to be true with no room for error or doubt. If you applied that standard to science, we would have very few facts left. The only things that would be fact are those that are supported by direct observation. A lot of things are in some sense "remote" and cannot be supported by direct observations and we have to get indirect evidence for them. No one has seen an electron or a neutrino or a quark. No one has seen a black hole or a pulsar either. And yes, no one has seen any creature evolve into a radically different one. In such situations, we try and gather evidence by indirect means - and there is a mountain of such evidence available for evolution.
When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he comes up with an explanation that fits the known facts. That is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis with all details filled-in that stands up to significant critical examination is elevated to the status of a theory. When there is an extremely large body of evidence in favor of a theory, none against and no credible rival theories, then it is called a fact. When a scientist is calling something a fact, all that he is doing it is giving it provisional acceptence. What he is saying, in effect, is that this is a sufficiently firm foundation on top of which other hypotheses and theories (and eventually facts) can be developed.
The paragraph quoted above concedes that evolution meets all the above criteria - so it is, as far as scientists are concerned, "confirmed, objective fact".
> as "confirmed, Objective fact". There is a lot
> of very good evidence to support Evolution.
> There is no rival theory that has any
> signficant evidence. Religious "explainations",
> especially those of creationists are so riddled
> with errors and run so counter to all the
> evidence that they do not deserve serious
> consideration. So certainly, the intelligent
> response is to accept Evolution as the best
> explaination out there, but it isn't proved
> fact.
Here we go again
When we call something a "fact" in casual conversation, we mean that it has been 100 percent established to be true with no room for error or doubt. If you applied that standard to science, we would have very few facts left. The only things that would be fact are those that are supported by direct observation. A lot of things are in some sense "remote" and cannot be supported by direct observations and we have to get indirect evidence for them. No one has seen an electron or a neutrino or a quark. No one has seen a black hole or a pulsar either. And yes, no one has seen any creature evolve into a radically different one. In such situations, we try and gather evidence by indirect means - and there is a mountain of such evidence available for evolution.
When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he comes up with an explanation that fits the known facts. That is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis with all details filled-in that stands up to significant critical examination is elevated to the status of a theory. When there is an extremely large body of evidence in favor of a theory, none against and no credible rival theories, then it is called a fact. When a scientist is calling something a fact, all that he is doing it is giving it provisional acceptence. What he is saying, in effect, is that this is a sufficiently firm foundation on top of which other hypotheses and theories (and eventually facts) can be developed.
The paragraph quoted above concedes that evolution meets all the above criteria - so it is, as far as scientists are concerned, "confirmed, objective fact".
