RE: Where's the Evolution?

Susan Brassfield (
Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:06:18 -0600

>> []On Behalf Of Brian D Harper
>> What you say is simply not true. One sees all the time and
>> in many various fields that the same word is used to refer to
>> both the facts associated with a phenomena as well as the
>> theory that tries to explain those facts. I know it is
>> probably surprising at first but it shouldn't cause too
>> much confusion once you get the idea.

Cummins wrote:

>To speak of "the theory of gravity" is inaccurate and, at best, an
>abbreviated version of the correct form. To be accurate, you would say "the
>theory of what causes gravity," (you could name the theory itself, such as
>"gravitational wave theory"), gravity itself is a fact, not a theory. Even
>if we allow the use of "gravity is a fact and a theory," the evolutionists
>are not simply overloading the subject, they're attempting to confuse things
>(the shell game).

Thousands of scientists of all kinds (not just evolutionary biologists)
undersand perfectly well what Brian means. That you don't is something *I*
would conceal rather than admit publically, if I were you.

>> You know, it might actually be less confusing if I said "the facts
>> about evolution" instead of "the fact of evolution".
>Is "ameba to man" a fact or a theory?

yes! :-)

actually modern amoebas share a common ancester with us--admittedly a very
remote one. Amoebas have their own ancestral history. Those are facts.

How the ancestral amoeba evolved into the modern amoebas--by natural
selection or genetic drift or whatever--is a discussion that would be under
the heading "Theory of Evolution."

Susan, Twit About Town


Life is short, but it's also very wide.