Re: Evolution Statement

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Thu Dec 06 2001 - 14:56:57 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Evolution Statement"

    Science is more than explanations. The overriding priority in science is
    prediction. The present model of the solar system allowed us to put a man on
    the moon. Such feat is based on the predictions that our theory makes. In
    physics we used to call something phenomenology when we would cook-up
    explanations for experimental data for which there was no real theory. I
    think the theory of evolution is, at best, phenomenology and does not have
    the credentials to be called a full-fledged scientific theory. Moorad

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dick Fischer" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:30 PM
    Subject: Evolution Statement

    Here is the opening statement on the web site:

    Can we improve on this?

    "When biologists refer to the theory of evolution, they use the word
    "theory" as it is used throughout science. It does not mean a mere
    speculation or an unsupported hypothesis. Rather, as The Oxford English
    Dictionary puts it, "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by
    observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for
    the known facts; a statement of the general laws, principles, or causes of
    something known or observed" (our italics). The complex body of principles
    that explain evolutionary change is a theory in the same sense as "quantum
    theory" in physics or "atomic theory" in chemistry: it has been developed
    from evidence, tested, and refined, and it accounts for literally thousands
    of observations made throughout the entirety of biological science and

    Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best
    explanation. It has withstood innumerable tests and attempts to disprove
    it, but it is still being refined, modified in the light of new knowledge,
    and extended to account for newly discovered phenomena. The theory of
    genetics has had such a history, progressing from Mendel's simple early
    principles to the complex body of molecular principles that constitute
    today's theory of inheritance, and it is constantly being refined and
    modified, even though its core principles have remained valid for a
    century. So it is with the theory of evolution.

    Is evolution also a fact? All but the most trivial facts begin as untested
    hypotheses-such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun.
    They acquire "facthood" as more and more evidence accrues in their favor,
    and as they withstand attempts to refute them. The evidence and attempt at
    refutation may take many forms besides simple observations; indeed, the
    most powerful evidence is not mere observations, but conformity to
    predictions that the hypothesis makes about what we should see if the
    hypothesis is true or false. We do not observe the earth making a circuit
    around the sun; we accept this hypothesis because of the numerous, verified
    astronomical observations-and more recently observations from
    spacecraft-that conform to the predictions of the hypothesis. So
    Copernicus's hypothesis is now a fact-a statement supported by so much
    evidence that we use it as if it were true.

    Biologists accept as fact that all organisms, living and extinct, have
    descended, with innumerable changes, from one or at most a few original
    forms of life. For Darwin in 1859, this was a hypothesis, for which he
    provided abundant evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, behavior,
    agriculture, paleontology, and the geographic distributions of organisms.
    Since that time, all of the many thousands of observations in each of these
    areas have supported Darwin's core hypothesis. To these observations has
    been added copious evidence that Darwin could hardly have dreamed of,
    especially from paleontology and molecular biology. A century's
    accumulation of such evidence establishes descent, with modification, from
    common ancestors as a fact of science. How we explain this fact-what the
    principles and causes of it may be-is the theory of evolutionary process,
    parts of which are subject to various amounts of scientific debate,
    modification, and extension.

    To claim evolution as a fact is to confront controversy, for probably no
    claim in all of science evokes as much emotional opposition as biological
    evolution. Nonetheless, no scientific hypothesis other than common descent
    with modification can account for and make predictions about the unity,
    diversity, and properties of living organisms. No other hypothesis of the
    origin of biological diversity is supported by such overwhelming evidence,
    and no competing hypothesis spawns such richness of scientific study and
    has as many implications for the biological sciences and their applications
    to societal needs."

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 06 2001 - 14:56:47 EST