RE: definition of science

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 12:30:27 EDT

Hi Moorad, you wrote:
> Many Darwinist do say that "evolution is a fact" rather than say that it is a working hypostasis.
Well, evolution is not a "working hypothesis" either. If evolution is defined as "change through time" then it is a fact that organisims do change through time. If you are talking about the concept of mutual-shared, common ancestry, the key element of Darwinian evolution, then it is a well-documented theory that explains the evidence satisfactorily and has become a paradigm.
As to the concept that random genetic drift alone can count for all the variation necessary upon which natural selection can act, that is unproven and could be either a theory or working hypothesis depending on how much credance you give it.
As to the idea that non-living chemicals can come alive, reproduce and replicate with increasing complexity without assistance anywhere in the process, that is simply a guess.
You are right that Darwinists will take short cuts and state simply that evolution is fact, when what they mean is that the key element of mutual-shared, common ancestry among the various species is fact. In "The Monkey Puzzle" the author stated: "Evolution is fact, FACT, FACT." Yeah, he's taking a short cut by not spelling out what facet of evolution theory he's talking about. But you did the same thing by calling evolution a "working hypothesis." So you're both wrong in opposite directions.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Mon Apr 25 12:31:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 12:31:42 EDT