User:Ed Poor/Evolution is a fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ths statement of scientists that evolution is a fact is used by proponents of both sides in seeking to gain advantage in the creation-evolution controversy, but this results in confusion for the lay public.

Contents

[edit] The idea that the theory is "really true"

Proponents of both sides of the evolution vs creation debate readily agree that a "theory", in the scientific rather than popular sense, differs from "fact" (in the absolutist sense), as all scientific theories are subject to falsification and are considered to be eternally tentative per the guidelines established within the scientific method. However, certain theories, like that of gravitation, are considered as fact because the daily observation of data that seems to prove the theory reinforces gravity's position as fact in the minds of the average person. Thus, the controversy engendered by the statement "evolution is fact" centers on the inability of the average non-scientist to observe evolutionary phenomena and artifacts in the day-to-day world.

[edit] Confusion over the words "fact" and "theory"

The word "fact" can refer to:

  1. data, i.e., astronomical observations or discovery of fossils. For example, "Our research is geared toward explaining these facts."
  2. truth, i.e., confidence that an idea is correct. For example, "Astronomers accepted the fact that the planets revolve around the sun long ago." (see Kepler and Newton's laws of planetary motion) Or, "It is a fact that bacteria transmit disease." (see Pasteur's germ theory of disease)

The word "theory" always means a way of accounting for (1) a set of observations by providing (2) an explanation that links them to a cause and/or predicts the results of additional observations.

[edit] Views of evolution proponents

Proponents say that biological evolution has been established so firmly as to be regarded as equally factual as gravity.

  • "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution." -- Richard Lewontin [1]
  • "Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority." -- James D. Watson [2]

[edit] Views of evolution opponents

When opponents call evolution a "theory"[3] they intend to demean it based on the popular usage of the term. The purpose is to bring the layman to their belief system, which is that evolution is much less than certain than universally accepted concepts such as gravity.

[edit] Comparing "Evolution is fact" with "Earth circles sun is fact"

In his book What Evolution Is (2002), Ernst Mayr explains that the "fact" of evolution derives from "inferences" that have "enormous certainty" because of the combination of 1) derived predictions that are verified, 2) confirmations from many lines of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology, and 3) "in most cases no rational alternative can be found."[4]


Nevertheless, when Mayr responds to the direct question Are not the "facts" of evolutionary biology something very different from the facts of astronomy, which show the Earth circles the sun rather than the reverse? (emphasis in the original), he says, "Yes, up to a point. The movement of planets can be observed directly. By contrast, evolution is a historical process. Past stages cannot be observed directly, but must be inferred from the context. Yet these inferences have enormous certainty . . . ."[5]


And then Mayr concludes with his argument that the "inferences" should be as convincing as "direct observation." Mayr says, "Frankly, I cannot see why such an overwhelming number of well-substantiated inferences is not scientifically as convincing as direct observations. . . . The endeavor of certain philosophers to construct a fundamental difference between the two kinds of evidence strikes me as misleading."[5]


[edit] Vulnerability of saying what evolution is--a fact

In 1999, the geomorphologist Arthur Strahler wrote a book advising scientists how to most effectively present the "fact" of evolution to non-scientists who easily misunderstand "facts."[6] Strahler notes that scientists had spoken of evolution as fact even before the "creationists' attempts to introduce their views into public education."[7] For example, one senior scientist of the Smithsonian Institution said in a speech in 1981, "Scientists may argue over the details of evolution, but they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled."[7]

Having thus noted examples of how scientists speak among themselves of evolution as fact, Strahler warns that non-scientists easily misunderstand the concept of "facts." Strahler describes the public relations problem this way: "In discussing the nature of science [earlier in the book], I took the position that no theory or important scientific hypothesis should be described as 'a fact.' Quite apart from the reasons I gave for this preference is a reason applying to public relations between mainstream scientists and nonscientists. The arrogance displayed by the claim of fact --absolute truth, that is -- incites resistance in a substantial sector of the public and can easily generate hostility toward the scientific community." According to Strahler, if the scientific community deals with pseudoscience in a heavy-handed manner, the detailed attack and ridicule likely polarizes "a substantial sector of the general public against mainstream science," such as by inducing in the general public a "pseudoscience cultism."[7]

One reviewer sympathized with Strahler's situation in America by saying: "a European such as myself is somewhat bemused by a debate that persists today with creationists who have become increasingly sophisticated in their single-issue lobby politics, and continue to act with vigor so as to cast doubts into the minds of a significant proportion of the American population. This is all despite the shoddiness of their intellectual position having been repeatedly exposed over the last three decades."[8] The reviewer goes on to highlight Strahler's observation of how easy it is for American non-scientists to misunderstand facts, "the blunt statements by many evolutionists that evolution is a fact, rather than a highly plausible theory overwhelmingly supported by a wide array of facts from different fields of inquiry, runs the risk of alienating potential supporters and increasing vulnerability to attack from the more sophisticated creationists."[9]

[edit] References

  1. ^ (R. C. Lewontin, 1981)
  2. ^ (James Watson, 1987)
  3. ^ definition 1
  4. ^ Mayr 2002
  5. ^ a b Mayr 2002, p. 276
  6. ^ Strahler 1999
  7. ^ a b c Strahler 1999, p. 329
  8. ^ Quinsey 2001, p. 66
  9. ^ Quinsey 2001, p. 67

[edit] Bibliography

  • Mayr, Ernst (2002), What Evolution Is, Basic Books; Reprint edition, ISBN 0465044263.
  • Quinsey, Vernon I. (Mar. 2001), "Review of: Science and Earth History by Arthur N. Strahler", Quarterly Review of Biology 76 (1): 66-67.
  • Strahler, Arthur N. (1999), Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1573927171.


 This evolution-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.