The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Evolution is Both a Fact and A Theory

Posted 23 August 2011 by Reed A. Cartwright

When I was in grad school at the University of Georgia, I participated in a case concerning the teaching of evolution: Selman v. Cobb County School District. The case revolved around a disclaimer that the affluent Cobb Country (Georgia) School Board affixed to biology textbooks.
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
And for those of you who don't remember, the county lost:
The critical language of the Sticker that supports the conclusion that the Sticker runs afoul of the Establishment Clause is the statement that "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." This statement is not problematic because of its truth or falsity, although testimony from various witnesses at trial and the amicus brief submitted by the Colorado Citizens for Science, et al. [That's us!], suggest that the statement is not entirely accurate. Rather, the first problem with this language is that there has been a lengthy debate between advocates of evolution and proponents of religious theories of origin specifically concerning whether evolution should be taught as a fact or as a theory, and the School Board appears to have sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause.
As you can see, an important part of the case hinged on the misleading language of the disclaimer. (The state of Alabama is still slapping similar disclaimers on books.) So it is great to see that Larry Moran has updated his article, "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory" and posted it on his blog. Of course, it's unfortunate that we still have to make this point because some people never get it.

66 Comments

Flint · 23 August 2011

I think it's fair to say creationists deny the FACT of evolution, therefore the mechanisms of course cannot cause what does not happen. The rest of their arguments are ways to misrepresent the mechanisms accordingly - and in the process, misrepresent research into those mechanisms, misrepresent what the researcher say, etc.

When they say evolution is a theory and not a fact, what they mean is that the actual changes over time are "theoretical" (that is, atheist guesses and lies), because what is discovered can't be evidence, because the "fact of evolution", not being true, can't HAVE evidence.

Karen S. · 23 August 2011

And it's always good to recall Ken Miller's thoughts on those warning labels.

stevaroni · 24 August 2011

Living in Texas, I used to hear this argument all the time.

I used to reply that evolution was a theory... one hundred and fifty years ago when the idea was first named.

You know, before the civil war.

When the telegraph and steam engine were promising new technologies that might be useful one day.

Before time zones, in a day when, for all practical purposes to anybody other than sailors, the world was still flat.

30 years before the atom or photon were discovered.

Five decades before the Wright brothers.

And since then it's been tested over and over and over and over again.

Tested by millions of scientists belonging to dozens of religions in a hundred countries for fifteen decades.

Tested and tested and tested and tested again and again and again.

It is regularly demonstrated in real time in graduate biology labs all over the planet - and it has been for a century.

And in all that time nobody has ever found a fatal flaw.

Of all those millions of people who have dealt directly with this stuff only a small handful - who make their money writing popular books about how wrong evolution is - make any claim at all that evolution is wrong. And yet none of them can actually demonstrate any actual evidence.

And they've had fifteen decades.

Now, why do you think that might be?

Here's the bottom line;

Evolution was a theory - one hundred and fifty years ago when it was named.

But you test something for fifteen decades and it's not a "theory" any more. It's a fact.

lemeza99 · 24 August 2011

This post left such a sour taste in my mouth I felt I had to comment - something which I very rarely do.

The intention of that disclaimer seek to make evolution appear less credible then it should, yes, but you've got your terminology completely wrong.

A theory is a system made to explain a set of phenomena. From a theory we can deduce testable statements, usually called 'predictions'. Then we test these statements by comparing them to the results of experiments. If the predictions match up, then the theory has, for the moment, passed - it has been verified. Evolution has been verified many times. But this verification is not conclusive proof.

Scientific theories must make testable predictions and therefore there is always the chance they can be disproved or superseded.

When you say evolution is not a theory but a fact what you mean is that it is not a hypothesis but a theory with a large amount of support.

For more information, and a much better explanation of the deductive method of testing, I recommend Karl R. Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. A preview is available on Google Books. His explanation is on Pages 9 and 10. Page 9 is unavailable there but Page 10 contains most of what I said.

SWT · 24 August 2011

lemeza99 said: When you say evolution is not a theory but a fact what you mean is that it is not a hypothesis but a theory with a large amount of support.
No. "Evolution is a fact" refers to actual observations, the extensive observations of heritable changes in biological populations over time. The well-verified "theory of evolution" is a framework to explain these observations.

TomS · 24 August 2011

I'll preface my remarks by noting that I claim no expertise on this subject.

I don't like this way of expressing the thought: "Evolution is both a fact and a theory."

This is, to me, a mixed metaphor.

A metaphor, because evolution is a process, something that happens in the world of life. Evolution is the change of hereditable properties in populations of living things across generations. Also expressed as common descent with modification.

It is a fact that evolution always happens to populations of living things as we know them, and always has, and, undoubtedly, always will.

And there are theories which (1) explain features of the world of life which come about because evolution happens and (2) which explain how evolution happens. For example, there is the theory(2) which explains that random variations and natural selection result in evolution. (There are other theories(2) of evolution, such as the "neutral theory" and "lamarckism". Some theories(2) about evolution are more accepted today than others.) And there is the theory(1) which explains the nested hierarchy of the tree of life as a result of common descent with modification. The expression "theory of evolution" means something different, depending upon whether the "of" is the objective genitive or the subjective genitive. (Sometimes people confuse the expression "theory of evolution" as an appositive genitive, meaning "evolution, the theory". Although people don't seem to have that same confusion when speaking of "the theory of the earth" or "the theory of antennas" or "the theory of flight".)

It is a metaphor to say that evolution is a fact. And it is a different kind of metaphor to say that evolution is a theory. Thus it is mixing metaphors to say "evolution is a fact and a theory".

I wouldn't complain about someone saying "evolution is a fact" as being a way of saying "it is a fact that evolution happens". We can't forbid metaphors in our language.

I would have some reservations about someone saying "evolution is a theory" if they didn't make it clear whether they meant a theory about evolution or a theory using concepts of evolution. But I agree that it would be pedantic to insist that everyone always makes this distinction.

eric · 24 August 2011

lemeza99 said: When you say evolution is not a theory but a fact what you mean is that it is not a hypothesis but a theory with a large amount of support.
If you read Moran's essay, and the Gould essay that preceded it, you will see that their point is that there are both facts and theories of evolution. Descent with modification is an empirically observed fact: observe parent, observe child, notice differences. (And the 20th century contribution: notice allele differences.) Likewise, it is a fact that the fossil record shows life on earth changing over time. Again, dig up old fossils, dig up new ones, notice species differences. No credible expert disputes these. You have to go to YECs like Ken Ham and find people who throw out all of modern geology and radiometric dating before you find someone who disputes these things. They are direct empricial observations, not theoretical explanations for them. There are also theories of evolution, i.e., why and how does the pattern of allele frequencies change in a population over generations? Is it natural selection? Sexual selection? Genetic drift? Something else? Maybe a bit of all of the above? Those are theory questions. But arguments over theory questions do not change the facts of evolution, which are that allele frequencies are observed to change over generations just as surely as objects are observed to fall. And that these allele frequency changes are observed to lead to speciation events.

apokryltaros · 24 August 2011

stevaroni said: Here's the bottom line; Evolution was a theory - one hundred and fifty years ago when it was named. But you test something for fifteen decades and it's not a "theory" any more. It's a fact.
It bears repeating that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution as fact refers to the observed differences and changes that occur, and have occurred in populations of organisms over various generations. Evolution as theory refers to the numerous, numerous sets of repeatedly tested and repeatedly verified hypotheses that describe and explain the biomechanicss, results, causes, rates, frequencies and effects of the aforementioned differences and changes in populations from generation to generation.

lemeza99 · 24 August 2011

SWT said: No. "Evolution is a fact" refers to actual observations, the extensive observations of heritable changes in biological populations over time. The well-verified "theory of evolution" is a framework to explain these observations.
eric said: -snip-
Sorry! I'm always picky about the differences hypotheses, theories and facts. I completely forgot that evolution can refer to a physical process as well the theory.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 24 August 2011

English is such a wonderful language - multiple meanings for the same words, and politicians are such lovely people - they chery pick, conflate, redefine the meanings of words etc. to suit thier own ends. That label is intentionally using the colloquial/vulgar definition of "theory" (something that many believe might be true, but remains unproven) where a discipline specific definition should be used (theory = organizing principle that is the basis of experiment/research)

the label doesn't even decribe waht evolution IS acurately - on the lable itself
"Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things"
Evolution is NOT about the origin of living things, thats biogenesis, or where life "startrd". Evolution is about how living things CHANGE over time.

so to summarize, a fact is a single verifiable observation or datum
or a statement of fact may summarize multple other facts, for example:

(Fact) Living things evolve

Any inference that the meaning of the word "theory" in this context means anything other than a framework or priciple that EXPLAINS FACTS is political manipulation of Orwellian proportions

again to summarize:
(Scientific Theory) Natural selection explains some of the differencial survival of organisms from generation to generation. The differencial survival of phenotypes leads to net change of a populations distribution of genotypes over time...

Newsspeak/doublespeak/political language (AKA bullshit) version of "theory":
"Evolution is only a theory, not fact"

Flint · 24 August 2011

Apparently the problem here is that for reasons that end up being perverse, we have chosen to use exactly the same word to describe both a coherent body of observed phenomena, and a proposed set of causes of those phenomena. These are different categories. No matter how extensive or consistent our observations become, they can never become their own explanations. And explanations, no matter how well tested, can never become the observations they are testing. Using the same word for two different KINDS of things makes equivocation on that word almost impossible to avoid.

So when someone rejects "evolution", it's hard to tell which of these two very different meanings is intended, especially if the person doing the rejecting fails to realize that there ARE two very different meanings. For clarity of discussion, it would help a lot to have two distinct terms, so we make the conceptual distinction as well as the rhetorical distinction.

Flint · 24 August 2011

And yes, Masked Panda is correct in pointing out that this situation is compounded by the different meanings of the word "theory", with the common understanding amounting to "any idle speculation, however uninformed, that anyone can dream up." So we're battling against the application of the word "theory", the distinction between the observations and their explanation, and the notion that a sufficiently well-attested explanation can BECOME the observations it is explaining.

mrg · 24 August 2011

I never pay too much attention to the "evolution is theory (or not)" arguments. They seem to be merely evasions of the actual bottom line: no matter what real or imagined weaknesses can be painted onto evolution, creationism is still 100% baloney -- and THAT is absolutely NOT a theory and IS a fact.

Flint · 24 August 2011

Teaching baloney to school children is ALSO a fact. The creationist drive to make teaching baloney a national policy is also a fact. So is creationist opposition to science. The goal is to make it more difficult for them, knowing they will never stop trying.

mrg · 24 August 2011

Flint said: Teaching baloney to school children is ALSO a fact.
I get this feeling that you want to argue with me, but I can't figure out why I would.

Henry J · 24 August 2011

Got baloney? Make sandwiches! (That's my theory, anyway.)

mrg · 24 August 2011

With reference to creationism, a less appetizing sandwich filler comes to mind -- but we won't go there.

Flint · 24 August 2011

mrg said:
Flint said: Teaching baloney to school children is ALSO a fact.
I get this feeling that you want to argue with me, but I can't figure out why I would.
No, I have no argument with what you've said. If I have any argument with you at all, it's with what comes across to me as airy dismissal of their policies because their doctrine is baloney. As has been pointed out here with thumping regularity, scientists have seen no sense in getting involved with the politics, since the content is nonsense. And ignoring political battles is a surefire way to lose them.

mrg · 24 August 2011

Flint said: No, I have no argument with what you've said.
Well, given the disinterest on this end, I guess that ends the discussion.

apokryltaros · 24 August 2011

Henry J said: Got baloney? Make sandwiches! (That's my theory, anyway.)
Why stick with baloney when you can use salami?

mrg · 24 August 2011

apokryltaros said: Why stick with baloney when you can use salami?
What we usually get is word salad.

Flint · 24 August 2011

mrg said:
Flint said: No, I have no argument with what you've said.
Well, given the disinterest on this end, I guess that ends the discussion.
You and my wife would get along splendidly. Her approach, just like yours, is to say "I've delivered my opinion, that ends the discussion, now go away."

mrg · 24 August 2011

Flint said: You and my wife would get along splendidly. Her approach, just like yours, is to say "I've delivered my opinion, that ends the discussion, now go away."
A friend of mine -- a liberal Mormon, quite the interesting sort -- once commented on disputes with his wife that he had learned to choose his battles more carefully. Though I'm not married, I've always kept that as a very good piece of advice.

harold · 24 August 2011

Apparently the problem here is that for reasons that end up being perverse, we have chosen to use exactly the same word to describe both a coherent body of observed phenomena, and a proposed set of causes of those phenomena.
Actually, Larry Moran dealt with this, and pointed out that this is the rule, rather than an exception. See his examples; for one off the top of my head, relativity. It is common for an observed phenomenon and the theory that explains it to have the same name. Stevaroni said -
I used to reply that evolution was a theory… one hundred and fifty years ago when the idea was first named. You know, before the civil war.
That is a very good point, except that you're arguing (correctly) that evolution isn't a hypothesis. It is the name of both a factually observed process and the theory that explains that process, though. A theory is a strongly supported unifying idea that explains multiple factual observations. Here are just a few individual factual observations that the theory of evolution explains: 1) Insecticide resistance develops in insect populations exposed to insecticide. 2) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. 3) Fossil series in the fossil record, e.g. horse, hominid, whale, dinosaur/proto-bird, etc. 4) Parasitic worms lack some features that free-living related worms possess. 5) Cave fish have vestigial eyes. 6) Any rational system of organizing species by degree of relationship shows a nested hierarchy. 7) ERV sequences - theory of evolution helps explain both their existence and the fact that across species, they recapitulate the same nested hierarchies obtained via classification by morphologic/physiologic features or by use of other genetic markers. This tiny list is very incomplete. I could go on and on all day. What are the elements of the theory of evolution? The following are observed facts - 1) Modern cellular organisms and viruses have genomes that are sequences of nucleic acid, virtually always double stranded DNA except for some viruses. 2) During replication and sometimes not even during replication, nucleic acid strands undergo "mutation" - "daughter" strand is not an identical copy of "parent" strand. In addition, in eukaryotic lineages, DNA undergoes recombination when it replicates for the formation of gametes. The expected rates of these processes are quite well understood and are sufficient to account for the genetic diversity of the biosphere. 3) Some mutations impact on phenotype. Offspring are virtually always somewhat different from parent(s) in phenotype. 4) Some phenotypes encounter selection in some environments; that is to say, reproduce more or less effectively than other phenotypes in the population, for reasons related to their interaction with the environment (or in some cases, simply because the phenotype cannot develop or thrive in any conceivable environment). 5) Mutations and recombination events occur as random variables relative to human observers and stochastic analysis may sometimes model the spread of alleles in a given population even in the absence of strong selective pressure. Why is there a theory of evolution? Because the second set of facts here provides strong explanatory power to help us understand the first set of facts above. The theory of evolution is not "complete". There is plenty of work on the details. But it is highly unlikely that any of the facts I have mentioned here will be refuted. There is plenty of room for clarification and expansion, but evolution is both an easily observed fact and a strong theory that explains the observation.

Flint · 24 August 2011

mrg said:
Flint said: You and my wife would get along splendidly. Her approach, just like yours, is to say "I've delivered my opinion, that ends the discussion, now go away."
A friend of mine -- a liberal Mormon, quite the interesting sort -- once commented on disputes with his wife that he had learned to choose his battles more carefully. Though I'm not married, I've always kept that as a very good piece of advice.
Hard to know you will encounter a battle until it happens.

TomS · 24 August 2011

harold said: It is common for an observed phenomenon and the theory that explains it to have the same name.
Yes. This is metonomy, the metaphorical use of a word to refer to something related to the literal referent of the word. For example, we may use the expression "geology" of some area to refer to the features of interest to geology: mountains, valleys, etc. Literally speaking, a mountain range is not geology, but everybody recognizes the use of the metaphor. Geology is the study of things like mountain ranges. The metonomy in this case is referring to something (mountains) related to something else (geology) to which it is related (by being the study of it). For example, a Frankenstein is a monster made by Dr. Frankenstein. Foggy Bottom is the US Department of State which has offices located in the area called "Foggy Bottom" (itself another metaphor).

mrg · 24 August 2011

Flint said: Hard to know you will encounter a battle until it happens.
True, but once it does there's the practical consideration of whether it's worth the bother to fight it or not. The answer, sometimes, is NO.

Flint · 24 August 2011

The disclaimer equivocates in two ways. First, it conflates the fact and the theory of evolution into one confusing bundle. Then it carefully applies the vernacular sense of "theory - someone else's opinion - where the scientific sense of "theory" should be used. It embodies the popular model of a "scale of certainty" running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.

THEN it instructs school children to do an informed analysis knowing they are equipped neither with the relevant knowledge, nor the analytical ability. And of course it singles out evolution despite this same condition (lack of relevant knowledge and ability) applying to every subject the student encounters.

Taken altogether, this disclaimer decodes as "Trust us, evolution is bunk." And everyone knows it.

Flint · 24 August 2011

mrg said:
Flint said: Hard to know you will encounter a battle until it happens.
True, but once it does there's the practical consideration of whether it's worth the bother to fight it or not. The answer, sometimes, is NO.
Agreed. There are times, however, when a discussion is NOT a battle, or doesn't need to be. The thrust of the thread is that creationists are trying to shove baloney down the throats of school children, and what can we do about it. Observing that it IS baloney is entirely correct, and not in any way in conflict with the desire to protect children from it. Can we imagine a creationist thinking "Gee, he's right, it IS baloney, I guess I'll stop pushing it."

Robert Byers · 24 August 2011

If the state is saying that evolution , the great conclusions on origins thereof, is a fact THEN the state is saying it has a opinion on the subject.
Since evolution being true means the bible in origins is not true then the state has a opinion, enforcing it, that the bible and therefore religion is not true.
As the article said all of this is tied up with the evolution/creation contention.
So its impossible for the state to say evolution is true and not be saying other ideas that reject it are NOT true.
So the state has a opinion on religion and so breaks the establishment clause surely.
There's that equation again.

Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth?
Either the people or a small group of people who know better.
If the former then its right to use the government for equity or whatever conclusion.
If the latter then the people should not matter.
If a small group then why not the old way of a religious leadership?
Democracy or not?!

Roger · 25 August 2011

Robert Byers said: If the state is saying that evolution , the great conclusions on origins thereof, is a fact THEN the state is saying it has a opinion on the subject. Since evolution being true means the bible in origins is not true then the state has a opinion, enforcing it, that the bible and therefore religion is not true. As the article said all of this is tied up with the evolution/creation contention. So its impossible for the state to say evolution is true and not be saying other ideas that reject it are NOT true. So the state has a opinion on religion and so breaks the establishment clause surely. There's that equation again.
Only in the heads of people like you. But we can take it a step further if you want: Didn't Jesus say something about turning the other cheek? This is a pacifistic stance therefore a US government that maintains armed forces must have an opinion on religion and so breaks the establishment clause. Get rid of the army, right Bob?
Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth? Either the people or a small group of people who know better. If the former then its right to use the government for equity or whatever conclusion. If the latter then the people should not matter. If a small group then why not the old way of a religious leadership? Democracy or not?!
Science is a meritocracy not a democracy but then we can go down that fantasist route again for it should be applied to religion too. You can rename the Kingdom of Heaven the Democratic Republic of Heaven and God can be voted out of office. Maybe you would like to stand as a candidate for God yourself?

Rolf · 25 August 2011

Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth? Either the people or a small group of people who know better

Let's meet in court, Robert. We do as the justice: make a case, investigate, call in in the experts that have studied the evidence and let the court decide. Familiar with Kitzmiller? Ready to lose the religion/ignorance war on science again?

TomS · 25 August 2011

Robert Byers said: Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth?
I am pleased when the creationists admit that the evidence for evolutionary biology is so overwhelming that they are driven to some sort of nihilism or relativism in order to deny it.

eric · 25 August 2011

Robert Byers said: If the state is saying that evolution , the great conclusions on origins thereof, is a fact THEN the state is saying it has a opinion on the subject. Since evolution being true means the bible in origins is not true then the state has a opinion, enforcing it, that the bible and therefore religion is not true.
Yes, the state can say and do things that religions object to. It's just that the state cannot do so out of religious animus.* Thus, if the State has a legitimate secular reason for teaching evolution, it can do so even if it directly contradicts some religious belief. The fact that the theory is overwhelmingly supported by the worldwide community of scientists as necessary and critical to the field of biology is a legitimate secular reason for teaching it in biology class. *That's one prong of Lemon. You'll have to study the other two on your own.
So its impossible for the state to say evolution is true and not be saying other ideas that reject it are NOT true.
Correct, but that is not the constitutional problem you seem to think it is. If the State could not say anything that some religion claimed was untrue, the whole system of government would break down, and every religion would be a law unto itself. Bottom line: the state tries to avoid religious conflicts, and settle them in a neutral manner when it can't avoid them. When neither of those two options are possible, law trumps religious belief.
Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth?
There are multiple answers to this. Let's start with the facetious one and get progressively more serious. 1) Lexicographers do. If the word's meaning fits the definition of a fact, it's a fact. :) 2) In terms of the theory, nobody does. We don't wait until theories have been proven true before teaching them, we simply teach the best available. The question of whether QM, or GR, or the TOE is ultimately, metaphysically 'true' is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it belongs in science classes. 3) In a pragmatic sense, YOU do. Every time you buy, or value, or trust a piece of science-derived technology, you are implicitly buying, valuing, trusting the underlying science. Any time anyone gets the flu vaccine, they are pragmatically trusting that the underlying evolutionary theory which was used to develop that vaccine was 'right enough' to provide the effect it claims to provide. You can't rationally claim to reject the idea that next year's strains are mutated versions of this year's strains, and then trust a vaccine which only works if this is true. Actions speak louder than words, Robert. And pretty much all of you creationists act as if science has grasped a big chunk of truth. Want to make your actions match your belief that science doesn't grasp the truth? Then pray me a response instead of typing it into your computer. That computer works on scientific principles. Every time you type on it, you reconfirm your pragmatic acceptance of science.

Timothy Sandefur · 25 August 2011

eric is right in his response to Robert Byers: the government may, for legitimate secular reasons, take an official position on matters of fact, even though religions disagree with that position. For example, the state may take the position that "all men are created equal" even though certain religious groups reject this proposition. It can encourage people to take certain steps to protect their health, even if religious groups might disagree with those things. So long as the state is not acting for the purpose of persecuting a religious group--or, to be more specific, so long as the state is not acting either to establish a religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion--then the state can take a position and base policies on it.

It is, of course, true that the state may NOT say that a religious position is untrue. And many people will object that as a logical matter, if (a) religion and evolution cannot both be true, and (b) the state is saying evolution is true, then (c) the state is saying religion is untrue. But as a legal matter, the state is allowed to say everything BUT that a religious view is untrue. So it is free to say that evolution is a scientific fact, that it is supported by all the evidence, that there is no evidence for the creationist position, and so forth--so long as it doesn't bar religious freedom or take an official RELIGIOUS position. In other words, it can (and I think, should) take factual positions--and even secular philosophical or normative positions--that are contrary to the views of religious persons or groups. I explain this in greater detail in this law review article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088905

(Many people take refuge in the argument that religion and evolution are compatible; I consider that silly.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 25 August 2011

kudos to Eric:
"Actions speak louder than words, Robert. And pretty much all of you creationists act as if science has grasped a big chunk of truth. Want to make your actions match your belief that science doesn’t grasp the truth? Then pray me a response instead of typing it into your computer. That computer works on scientific principles. Every time you type on it, you reconfirm your pragmatic acceptance of science."

indeed - if your faith is so strong, why do you need applied quantum theory (transistors/ microchips)? why do you need applied evolutionary theory (not only vaccines but EVERY drug/product tested in animal models, every crop improved through selective breeding (or genetic modification)

IIRC even the Amish/ Mennonites will use modern hybrid seeds

eric · 25 August 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: IIRC even the Amish/ Mennonites will use modern hybrid seeds
AIUI, their rejection of technology has more to do with technology's effect on the community than it does any rejection of science. So for example, they reject TVs because TV watching results in people interacting less with their neighbors (totally true!). Likewise, cars and planes reduce people's reliance on and integration into their local community. And so on. They don't necessarily reject electricity/magnetism, or aerodynamics...or an old earth. Which is to say, I'm sure some do out of religious reasons, but the philosophy behind their lifestyle does not reject the modern scientific understanding of how the world works.

SWT · 25 August 2011

eric said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: IIRC even the Amish/ Mennonites will use modern hybrid seeds
AIUI, their rejection of technology has more to do with technology's effect on the community than it does any rejection of science. So for example, they reject TVs because TV watching results in people interacting less with their neighbors (totally true!). Likewise, cars and planes reduce people's reliance on and integration into their local community. And so on. They don't necessarily reject electricity/magnetism, or aerodynamics...or an old earth. Which is to say, I'm sure some do out of religious reasons, but the philosophy behind their lifestyle does not reject the modern scientific understanding of how the world works.
This matches my understanding. I remember hearing an interview with the leader of an Amish community, who spoke about needing once in a while to go to a pay phone to deal with a business matter. He said explicitly that he had no problem with telephones -- he had a problem with what a telephone in the house would do to his family life. It's definitely a choice about technology rather than a rejection of the principles by which technology operates.

Mike Elzinga · 25 August 2011

Timothy Sandefur said: It is, of course, true that the state may NOT say that a religious position is untrue. And many people will object that as a logical matter, if (a) religion and evolution cannot both be true, and (b) the state is saying evolution is true, then (c) the state is saying religion is untrue. But as a legal matter, the state is allowed to say everything BUT that a religious view is untrue. So it is free to say that evolution is a scientific fact, that it is supported by all the evidence, that there is no evidence for the creationist position, and so forth--so long as it doesn't bar religious freedom or take an official RELIGIOUS position. In other words, it can (and I think, should) take factual positions--and even secular philosophical or normative positions--that are contrary to the views of religious persons or groups. I explain this in greater detail in this law review article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088905 (Many people take refuge in the argument that religion and evolution are compatible; I consider that silly.)
One of the answers an instructor can give to this is that the course is about science and not about religion. In the United States, people are free to work out any conflicts they have with science within their own churches. With literally thousands of religions in the world, it is not within the instructor’s ability, nor is there sufficient time, to resolve all the differences among all the sectarian beliefs. Any effort to do so would lead to excessive entanglement in religion and leave no time for the science. If a student or parent continues to press the issue (some do), direct him/her to a comparative religion course if one exists. But in no way is any instructor obligated to walk on eggshells and avoid scientific concepts just because some sectarians take offense. As already pointed out, sectarians have their churches; and they have no business dragging others into the internal issues and problems that crop up regarding their sectarian beliefs. Sectarians live in, benefit from, and are protected and fed by a larger secular society. They have no reason to complain about what others want and need to learn.

IBelieveInGod · 25 August 2011

Is Universal Common Descent a FACT???

apokryltaros · 25 August 2011

An Idiot asked: Is Universal Common Descent a FACT???
Yes. It's heavily implied, what with all the similarities we see in bacteria, archaeans, and eukaryotes. Conversely, "God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago using magic, as according to a literal reading of the Bible" neither is a fact, nor explains anything. After all, you constantly imply that a literal reading of the Bible is somehow more scientific than actual science, yet, consistently refuse to elaborate why, beyond saying you have "faith" Now, having said that, can we return the idiot IBelieve to the Bathroom Wall?

IBelieveInGod · 26 August 2011

Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true.

Dale Husband · 26 August 2011

You just told yet another lie, IBIG.
IBelieveInGod said: Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true.
You focus on ONE phrase from Stanton and ignore everything else that has ever been said to you about evolution? Responsible scientists have NO presuppositions when it comes to evidence. The claim that they do have such things is a Creationist rhetorical trick, nothing more. Look, @$$hole! You have already been totally discredited by your making a big deal out of the "law of non-contradiction" and then denying the MASSIVE contradictions in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, thus proving you to be a hypocrite of the first order. So you can go fuck yourself in your mother's basement for all I care. You and FL do nothing but poison these discussions with your worthless crap over and over again.

Robert Byers · 26 August 2011

eric said:
Robert Byers said: If the state is saying that evolution , the great conclusions on origins thereof, is a fact THEN the state is saying it has a opinion on the subject. Since evolution being true means the bible in origins is not true then the state has a opinion, enforcing it, that the bible and therefore religion is not true.
Yes, the state can say and do things that religions object to. It's just that the state cannot do so out of religious animus.* Thus, if the State has a legitimate secular reason for teaching evolution, it can do so even if it directly contradicts some religious belief. The fact that the theory is overwhelmingly supported by the worldwide community of scientists as necessary and critical to the field of biology is a legitimate secular reason for teaching it in biology class. *That's one prong of Lemon. You'll have to study the other two on your own.
So its impossible for the state to say evolution is true and not be saying other ideas that reject it are NOT true.
Correct, but that is not the constitutional problem you seem to think it is. If the State could not say anything that some religion claimed was untrue, the whole system of government would break down, and every religion would be a law unto itself. Bottom line: the state tries to avoid religious conflicts, and settle them in a neutral manner when it can't avoid them. When neither of those two options are possible, law trumps religious belief.
Who indeeds decides if evolution is a fact of truth?
There are multiple answers to this. Let's start with the facetious one and get progressively more serious. 1) Lexicographers do. If the word's meaning fits the definition of a fact, it's a fact. :) 2) In terms of the theory, nobody does. We don't wait until theories have been proven true before teaching them, we simply teach the best available. The question of whether QM, or GR, or the TOE is ultimately, metaphysically 'true' is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it belongs in science classes. 3) In a pragmatic sense, YOU do. Every time you buy, or value, or trust a piece of science-derived technology, you are implicitly buying, valuing, trusting the underlying science. Any time anyone gets the flu vaccine, they are pragmatically trusting that the underlying evolutionary theory which was used to develop that vaccine was 'right enough' to provide the effect it claims to provide. You can't rationally claim to reject the idea that next year's strains are mutated versions of this year's strains, and then trust a vaccine which only works if this is true. Actions speak louder than words, Robert. And pretty much all of you creationists act as if science has grasped a big chunk of truth. Want to make your actions match your belief that science doesn't grasp the truth? Then pray me a response instead of typing it into your computer. That computer works on scientific principles. Every time you type on it, you reconfirm your pragmatic acceptance of science.
I know the lemon stuff. The state has a legitimate reason to teach the TRUTH.Period. Yes the state can teach religious stuff is wrong as long as it can teach religious stuff is true. Yet if the state is banned from teaching religious stuff is true, on subjects where this is a issue, by a law based on a enforced neutrality then it could only be that the state must not teach religious stuff is false. The lemon test is a lemon. Its faulty in its reasoning. This is all about censoring opinions because of their origins. They censor creationism and any criticism of evolution etc based on a law that then they ignore when they want to teach creationism is wrong. It just can't be beat that origin subjects cross into presumptions of religion. They say don't stop the teaching of truth because it contradicts religion! Fine. splendid. Don't stop the teaching of truth because it confirms religion.!! There is no constitutional law against teaching the truth. Its a error of modern jurisprudence. One can't say the state can't make a establishment of religion AND THEN attack some establishment of religion. The states establishing something here.!!! its impossible in subjects dedicated to truth to then censor one side without it being a official state opinion that side is not true. NOT TRUE. Settled fact. Religious doctrine is not true, as a state opinion, is a establishment of religion. A state opinion on religion. Where am I wrong in my logic?!

Robert Byers · 26 August 2011

Timothy Sandefur said: eric is right in his response to Robert Byers: the government may, for legitimate secular reasons, take an official position on matters of fact, even though religions disagree with that position. For example, the state may take the position that "all men are created equal" even though certain religious groups reject this proposition. It can encourage people to take certain steps to protect their health, even if religious groups might disagree with those things. So long as the state is not acting for the purpose of persecuting a religious group--or, to be more specific, so long as the state is not acting either to establish a religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion--then the state can take a position and base policies on it. It is, of course, true that the state may NOT say that a religious position is untrue. And many people will object that as a logical matter, if (a) religion and evolution cannot both be true, and (b) the state is saying evolution is true, then (c) the state is saying religion is untrue. But as a legal matter, the state is allowed to say everything BUT that a religious view is untrue. So it is free to say that evolution is a scientific fact, that it is supported by all the evidence, that there is no evidence for the creationist position, and so forth--so long as it doesn't bar religious freedom or take an official RELIGIOUS position. In other words, it can (and I think, should) take factual positions--and even secular philosophical or normative positions--that are contrary to the views of religious persons or groups. I explain this in greater detail in this law review article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088905 (Many people take refuge in the argument that religion and evolution are compatible; I consider that silly.)
When did the state decide there was no evidence for creationism to be true? This was decided in the 1700's ?? Would a very Protestant Yankee and Southern people agree with this? Your right that the state can't say religious doctrines are officially not true. yet if truth in these subjects is the stated goal and one side is banned then how is the state not saying the side banned is officially NOT TRUE. So saying religious doctrines are false!! Officially. Its all a humbug. The founders of America never meant the state was everything the state paid for. The state was the government. The state is not or ever thought to be school courses. the people are free to decide what they want their kids taught. Its not a important state matter.

John · 26 August 2011

IBelieveInGod the mendacious Xian moron drooled: Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true.
Sorry BIGGY, you lie again. "Heavily implied" is indeed a FACT since there is overwhelming genomic evidence that points to the fact that all organisms on Planet Earth - both living and extinct - are related and thus part of a grand "tree of life". While it may be true that we don't know all the details within that tree, there is indeed overwhelming evidence from genomic data that confirms that all life on our planet share a common ancestry.

John · 26 August 2011

I think our fellow American Conservatives need to heed the words of Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman who both recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution. Back in 2006 Gingrich not only acknowledged this, but also said that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes since it isn't scientific. Last week, Jon Huntsman had the temerity to warn fellow Republicans that the Republican Party could be seen as the "anti-science party" if it adopted the anti-scientific biases stated repeatedly by the likes of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

apokryltaros · 26 August 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true.
So where is the evidence of God having magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, using magic as per a literal reading of Genesis? Why do you consider the literal mountains of evidence for evolution occurring gathered over literal centuries to be invalid? Why do you consider your own word, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be utterly worthless, to have greater bearing than the words of all the scientists in the world?

apokryltaros · 26 August 2011

John said:
IBelieveInGod the mendacious Xian moron drooled: Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true.
Sorry BIGGY, you lie again. "Heavily implied" is indeed a FACT since there is overwhelming genomic evidence that points to the fact that all organisms on Planet Earth - both living and extinct - are related and thus part of a grand "tree of life". While it may be true that we don't know all the details within that tree, there is indeed overwhelming evidence from genomic data that confirms that all life on our planet share a common ancestry.
The only people IBelieve can hope to fool with his inane Word-Lawyering For Jesus are fellow Idiots For Jesus like Robert Byers, and fellow Lying Bigots For Jesus like FL. And I'm wondering whether he postures because he knows this and just wants to Antagonize us For Jesus, or whether because he's mad at us that we are not as stupid as he'd like us to be.

TomS · 27 August 2011

John said: there is overwhelming genomic evidence that points to the fact that all organisms on Planet Earth - both living and extinct - are related and thus part of a grand "tree of life".
May I point out that we have very little genomic evidence about extinct forms of life on Earth. We have a bit of the genome of Neanderthals, and we can legitimately infer something about the genomes of extinct ancestors of present forms. But I wouldn't say that we have any genomic evidence for the position of trilobites (or other dead ends) in the tree of life. Which is not, of course, to deny our common ancestry with trilobites, or to question the sufficiency of the evidence for their position in the tree of life. Moreover, how much of the genomes have we for all of the millions of extant species? Of course we can predict that when the DNA of any yet-unsequenced species is examined, it will confirm common ancestry, but we don't now have the genomic evidence in hand.

harold · 27 August 2011

IBIG said -
Heavily implied is not a FACT now is it? It is only heavily implied based on your presupposition that evolution from common descent is true
The only reason you reject it is because you presuppose that it can't be true. There is no evidence that could convince you. It doesn't work the other way around. Of course the only reason I "believe in" common descent is because that's what the evidence indicates. I didn't presuppose anything (I'm not religious, but the version of Christianity I was raised wasn't science-denying anyway). Fact - life on earth shows overwhelming evidence of common descent.

harold · 27 August 2011

TomS said:
John said: there is overwhelming genomic evidence that points to the fact that all organisms on Planet Earth - both living and extinct - are related and thus part of a grand "tree of life".
May I point out that we have very little genomic evidence about extinct forms of life on Earth. We have a bit of the genome of Neanderthals, and we can legitimately infer something about the genomes of extinct ancestors of present forms. But I wouldn't say that we have any genomic evidence for the position of trilobites (or other dead ends) in the tree of life. Which is not, of course, to deny our common ancestry with trilobites, or to question the sufficiency of the evidence for their position in the tree of life. Moreover, how much of the genomes have we for all of the millions of extant species? Of course we can predict that when the DNA of any yet-unsequenced species is examined, it will confirm common ancestry, but we don't now have the genomic evidence in hand.
Although this is technically true and I am sure we agree overall, I feel compelled to point out that the genomic evidence we have from contemporary life represents a sampling of diverse members of the biosphere. The genomic evidence we have is strong evidence of common descent. It's true that we haven't sampled the genome of, say, every species in the genus Drosophila, but the onus is on those who would argue that the genome of the one we did sequence happens to support common descent by "coincidence". The rational conclusion is that if insect, plant, bacterial, flatworm, mouse, human, and indeed even virus genomes consistently reveal strong evidence for common descent each time a new genome is sequenced, then genomics supports common descent. We will never have genomic sequences for the vast majority of species that ever lived, as they are extinct, but this does not change the fact that genomic data supports common descent.

TomS · 27 August 2011

I don't want to leave the impression that I am questioning the overwhelming evidence for common descent. I just felt that John twas going a little overboard. I would find it interesting, and not disturbing, if a life form were discovered that didn't fit into the "tree of life". It's clear enough from so many independent lines of inference that so much of the world of life (including us, in particular) shares common descent.

Atheistoclast · 5 September 2011

If you define "Evolution" as narrowly as possible, of course it becomes an observed "fact". But this is a specious point.

I think we need to distinguish between evolution and origination. I think Darwin should have called his magnum opus the "Evolution/Adaptation of Species" rather than the "Origin of (all) Species".

mrg · 5 September 2011

TomS said: I would find it interesting, and not disturbing, if a life form were discovered that didn't fit into the "tree of life".
Paul Davies has had some interesting speculations along this line. There may be microorganisms out there that have no relation to all known organisms, being derived from an "alternate origin". We haven't spotted them so far because possibly (a) they only live in extreme environments, having been pushed to the side and (b) we may not know how to look for them, for example our assays not picking them up. Although a search for such organisms could well come up zeroes, we'd still learn a lot from it.

John · 5 September 2011

TomS said:
John said: there is overwhelming genomic evidence that points to the fact that all organisms on Planet Earth - both living and extinct - are related and thus part of a grand "tree of life".
May I point out that we have very little genomic evidence about extinct forms of life on Earth. We have a bit of the genome of Neanderthals, and we can legitimately infer something about the genomes of extinct ancestors of present forms. But I wouldn't say that we have any genomic evidence for the position of trilobites (or other dead ends) in the tree of life. Which is not, of course, to deny our common ancestry with trilobites, or to question the sufficiency of the evidence for their position in the tree of life. Moreover, how much of the genomes have we for all of the millions of extant species? Of course we can predict that when the DNA of any yet-unsequenced species is examined, it will confirm common ancestry, but we don't now have the genomic evidence in hand.
TomS, we do have excellent genomic data at the phylum-level, and all of this does point to a monophyletic tree of life. I probably should have stressed that, but that doesn't detract much from the truthiness of my statement (with apologies to Stephen Colbert).

John · 5 September 2011

Atheistofool the psychotic American expatriate creotard barfed: If you define "Evolution" as narrowly as possible, of course it becomes an observed "fact". But this is a specious point. I think we need to distinguish between evolution and origination. I think Darwin should have called his magnum opus the "Evolution/Adaptation of Species" rather than the "Origin of (all) Species".
Your point may have merit if you were to distinguish between speciation and origination, with the latter applied to taxa above the species level, but fundamentally, they are still the same, Joe Bozo.

Atheistoclast · 6 September 2011

John said:
Atheistofool the psychotic American expatriate creotard barfed: If you define "Evolution" as narrowly as possible, of course it becomes an observed "fact". But this is a specious point. I think we need to distinguish between evolution and origination. I think Darwin should have called his magnum opus the "Evolution/Adaptation of Species" rather than the "Origin of (all) Species".
Your point may have merit if you were to distinguish between speciation and origination, with the latter applied to taxa above the species level, but fundamentally, they are still the same, Joe Bozo.
Speciation in finches and fruit flies is hardly evidence that all living things are the result of descent with modification. That is a massive extrapolation.

eric · 6 September 2011

Atheistoclast said: Speciation in finches and fruit flies is hardly evidence that all living things are the result of descent with modification. That is a massive extrapolation.
So, just so I get your position straight: you are hypothesizing an invisible, omnipotent, omniscent, benevolent diety magically poofing life forms into existence, because you dislike massive extrapolation?

Henry J · 6 September 2011

Speciation in finches and fruit flies is hardly evidence that all living things are the result of descent with modification. That is a massive extrapolation.

That is one piece of evidence. Nobody expects the theory to have to be proven all over again from each piece of data - it's the patterns across all the relevant data that are the reason for accepting a theory, not any one data point taken by itself.

Science Avenger · 6 September 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Is Universal Common Descent a FACT???
Yes, via some of the same exact processes used in paternity suits when they do DNA tests. The only difference is the closeness of the relationship. Do you deny the validity of paternity DNA tests? Do you accuse the courts of having invalid presuppositions? Why not?

Science Avenger · 6 September 2011

Atheistoclast said: I think we need to distinguish between evolution and origination.
Who's "we" pale face? The only people I ever see on here conflating the two are the evolution deniers.

John · 6 September 2011

Henry J said:

Speciation in finches and fruit flies is hardly evidence that all living things are the result of descent with modification. That is a massive extrapolation.

That is one piece of evidence. Nobody expects the theory to have to be proven all over again from each piece of data - it's the patterns across all the relevant data that are the reason for accepting a theory, not any one data point taken by itself.
Agreed, and I couldn't have said it better myself, Henry J.

John · 6 September 2011

eric said:
Atheistoclast said: Speciation in finches and fruit flies is hardly evidence that all living things are the result of descent with modification. That is a massive extrapolation.
So, just so I get your position straight: you are hypothesizing an invisible, omnipotent, omniscent, benevolent diety magically poofing life forms into existence, because you dislike massive extrapolation?
He's ashamed to admit that that deity is some entity named Lucifer. Or maybe it's some obscure Klingon GOD I haven't heard of before.

stevaroni · 6 September 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Is Universal Common Descent a FACT???
YES, IBIG it is a fact. That's the name for something that you've tested for 150 years and never found wrong. That's the name you give something that is supported by all the hard physical evidence, and contradicted by none of it. We can all mince what the word "theory", but the bottom line is that if hundreds of thousands of people aggressively measure something for fifteen decades and they all get the same answer then they're probably not wrong.

apokryltaros · 7 September 2011

stevaroni said: We can all mince what the word "theory", but the bottom line is that if hundreds of thousands of people aggressively measure something for fifteen decades and they all get the same answer then they're probably not wrong.
Unless, of course, the answer in question is somehow offensive to certain religious fundamentalists solely because it contradicts a literal (mis)reading of the Bible.