Dear George,

I responded to the statement: "… the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, …”

There is a difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the fact. The theory of evolution is not a foundational scientific truth or any other kind of truth.

Evolution (the extinction of species and the development of new species) is a fact. The fossil record and experiments and observations of species such as bacteria and fruit flies that have short life spans in comparison with ours demonstrate the fact.

The theory is continually modified as new mechanisms are postulated and regarded as acceptable hypotheses or falsified. Darwin postulated natural selection as a mechanism to explain the formation and extinction of species.

Gould and Eldridge postulated punctuated equilibrium which modifies natural selection. Rather than evolutionary change as a continuum they postulate that change only occurs when some stimulus causes an environmental or other change else no change occurs. Some scientists accept punctuated equilibrium as an acceptable theory. Others don't.

Margulis has postulated symbiosis as a factor in evolutionary change. One example of this is the eukaryotic cell that, according the theory of evolution through symbiosis, developed from the symbiotic relations of various procaryotic cells to a permanent relationship. Evidence for this is the fact there are bacterial forms that closely resemble the mitochondria that are integral to the eukaryotic cell. Another example is the lichen, permanent associations of algae and fungi, but postulated to have developed from separate algal and fungal organisms.

The theory rather than a truth is an explanation of the fact of evolution which is continually updated as we find out more and modify the theory by these findings or theorise and either disprove or accept the modified theory as we gather more evidence

david f: "Evidence for this is the fact there are bacterial forms that closely resemble the mitochondria that are integral to the eukaryotic cell."

Remarkably, there is better evidence than that now. At least I think it is remarkable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatena

Dear david f,

I certainly do not want to contradict what you wrote, although I prefer your original reference to “phenomena” rather than “facts”. In my Dictionary (based on the New Oxford American Dictionary) I found the following “definitions”:

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case : a piece of information used as evidence .
Phenomenon: the object of a person's perception; what the senses … notice. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable (Wikipedia).
Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality : a fact or belief that is accepted as true, e.g. the emergence of scientific truths, the fundamental truths about mankind.

You see, the concepts are intertwined. My ambiguity is with the term “indisputable”: “the sun rising in the morning” is, always was and will be (presumely as long our descendants exist) an “indisputably” observable phenomenon. On the other hand, “the Earth orbiting sun” has been “indisputable” - hence a fact according to that definition - only since the last couple of centuries.

There are many other things that have become for us indisputable facts (or truths) as a result of scientific explanation. On the other hand phenomena are always a priori given, unexplained (although some of them unobservable without tools provided by the application of scientific investigation). So the preference for “truth“, “fact“ or “explanation of phenomena”, is not that unequivocal.

[Admittedly, my post contained a personal view about the scientist’s “pursuit of truth”, directly unrelated to the original article (and your post), since I was curious about your reaction to it. There is namely a difference between e.g. a biologist’s and a theoretical physicist’s or cosmologis’s approach to this, among other things also because for the former “time” is something in the background, a priori given, whereas for the latter the concept of time is also part of the investigation, part of the reality he/she tries to model, explain. Maybe also for these reasons there are more outright atheists (i.e. excluding deists) among biologists than among theoretical physicists as Polkinghorne claims].

Thanks for your response, Dan.

<<What don’t you want taught in schools?>>

I don’t want children to be taught anything that is demonstrably false as if it were true.

<<I was talking about critiquing evolution. You don’t think that school kids should be taught the ability to critique?>>

Absolutely I do, and you know that. But ‘critiquing’ and ‘Creationism’ are two very different things. Critiquing means to critically evaluate something, Creationism on the other hand, is that act of denying all evidence for religious reasons, and shifting the goal posts when someone meets one of their challenges.

In fact, that being said, Creationism is the very opposite to critiquing.

You’re pushing this idea again that evolution has some detrimental problems. If you want to continue down that path then please state what these problems are, don’t just insinuate. That’s very unhelpful.

<<If you were saying arguing with numbers is a fallacy, why do you spend your next few sentences engaging in it as if it wasn’t?>>

All I was doing was bringing some perspective to your comment about those “thousands of credentialed scientists”; as I suspect Rusty was too.

Numbers only become a fallacy if they are offered as some sort of proof. You offered numbers to create a false sense that evolution under serious doubt, or that it is in some sort of crisis, and as we both know, Creationists fall victim to the false dichotomy that if evolution isn’t true, then Creationism is (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#116311). Thus it became a fallacy.

I think this should sufficiently answer your next paragraph...

<<If you believe it is a fallacy, a crime for which Dan needs a rebuke, are you also now also going to reprimand Rusty for using this ‘numbers fallacy’ (as well as David Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project, or those of ‘Project Steve’)? Here’s your chance. Or don’t you believe that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander?>>

As for ‘Project Steve’ though, that’s simply a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun that - again - put the Creationist’s numbers fallacy into perspective.

Continued...

...Continued

<<At the end of the day, I’m sure we’ll end up agreeing that just one person with a good argument is enough.>>

We can already agree on that. So if you can show me a good argument from a Creation “scientist” that hasn’t been debunked over-and-over then please mention it.

Runner,

I’m still waiting for a response to my question about your alleged “true scientific process”.

Or was that comment simply a timid and unfounded response to my point to Dan on the other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#161319) about the difference between the ‘Statement of Faith’ and the scientific method?

If so, then you could at least have the courage and courtesy to acknowledge that you simply made it up.

Thanks.

George wrote: "I certainly do not want to contradict what you wrote, although I prefer your original reference to “phenomena” rather than “facts”. In my Dictionary (based on the New Oxford American Dictionary) I found the following “definitions”:"

Dear George,

Why not contradict what I wrote? You do it so well. I prefer my original reference also. I found your last paragraph basing the reasons for theistic belief on attitudes to time most interesting. I enjoy your expositions.