At 9:44 AM -0600 8/18/99, Jim Guinee wrote:
>The most cogent reading I have done by a Christian writer on evolution was
>making the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. He
>claims that you cannot refute micro -- there is too much evidence. Macro
>has not been sufficiently proven, so it must be held suspect. So, no
>debunking, just suggesting that perhaps evolutionists would have us
>automatically believe what has not been proven.
This is a distinction raised more by those trying to discredit the
principle of evolution than by those studying it. It's not really a
dichotomy; more of a continuum of scale. Individual population vary to
differing extents. At some point, the difference is great enough to label
them different species. This difference is not clearcut. The possibility
of interbreeding is a _rough_ guide only, and there are many areas of
controversey.
>Very often today evolution is talked about as a fact, not a theory.
Again, the term 'theory' is not synonymous with 'hypothetical'.
There is nothing hypothetical about the theory of gravity.
A theory is simply a conceptual structure that interrelates sets of
observations.
Evolution is simply the observation (simple fact) that groups of organisms
have changed over time.
Natural Selection is a mechanism that is hypothesized
(and accepted by 99 44/100 % of biologists) to account for evolution.
>Same
>thing with the big bang theory -- I have seen many presentations that it is
>discussed as a fact. Yet, my physics friends tell me the big bang theory
>rests on many (as of yet) unproven assumptions.
'Proof' in this sense is a logical and mathematical concept, not a
scientific one.
_Nothing_ is ever totally certain in science -- there is always room for
improvement in our theoretical systems.
The classic example is Einstein's equations describing relativity.
These _extended_ Newton's laws (equations) of mechanics. They did *not*
replace them. Take Einstein's equations, set the time (and hence velocity)
value to zero, and they reduce to Newton's! Thus, engineers working at
earthbound velocities still use Newton's laws of mechanics as a perfectly
adequate approximation.
The one sense in which scientific theories can be said to be 'proved' is in
the original sense of the word: "tested" -- as in 'the proof (test) of the
pudding is in the eating' and 'the exception that proves (tests) the rule.
In this sense, Natural Selection is put to the test every time new fossils
are discovered. Either they fit the predictions made from theories of
natural selection, or those theories must be modified.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State" *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
