RE: definition of science

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 13:22:51 EDT

Needless to say, everything changes with time. Very few Darwinists would use the term to indicate mere time development, a term commonly used by physicists when referring to the temporal behavior of a dynamical system. Evolution can mean anything from changes over large periods, e.g. beginning with the Big Bang onward to the present, to observations on changes over human-lifetime variations. Clearly, the term is equivocal.

Moorad

 

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dick Fischer
Sent: Mon 4/25/2005 12:30 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: definition of science

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 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
Received on Mon Apr 25 13:24:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 13:24:16 EDT