Questions about evolution

NaddiaAoC · Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 2:08 am Post subject: Questions about evolution

I've started reading The Lucifer Principle and I have been enjoying the discussion on it so far. I think that I still lack understanding about some basic principles of evolution. So here are a couple questions I have.

1) Is evolution considered to be a theory, a fact, or both by the scientific community?

2) If evolution is considered to be a fact, what does that mean? How does a fact differ from a theory in the scientific method?

Please don't direct me to the Talkorigins website. I've read it and I know how it defines it. But I've heard others disagree with it. I'm interested in views other than that.

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 3:48 pm

ZachSylvanus · Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 3:05 pm Post subject: Re: Questions about evolution

Evolution is accepted as a correct method of describing the origins of the variability of life on Earth.

Evolution by Natural Selection is still a theory, although one thats fairly well accepted.

Fact, law, theory...its really all relative. The body of scientific knowledge is changing all the time. Newton's laws aren't really laws in the face of new advancements....such as gravity, for example. The distinguishing feature is mankind's arrogance over their models. As I was once told in Chemistry, regarding a model of the atom, "And as a model of the atom, it's probably wrong, like every other model we have. But it suffices, and for now that is good enough."

Edit: This seems to be a good book on evolution so far. It's the textbook I'm using in my Evolution class currently, and its paperback, so its only about half the cost of a normal textbook.

Edited by: ZachSylvanus at: 11/2/02 4:04:24 pm

Chris OConnor · Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 2:39 am Post subject: Re: Questions about evolution

We have many members who are well educated in the theory of evolution, or at least the process of the scientific method. I'm hoping to hear a few more responses to Cheryl's questions.

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

Johnny Neuron · Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 4:19 pm Post subject: Evolution: A fact and a theory

HTML Comments are not allowed

(damn)

Edited by: Johnny Neuron at: 11/4/02 3:23:35 pm

Ani Osiris · Almost a regular Joined: 03 Nov 2002 Posts: 49 Gender:

You may want to check out What Is Evolution? by Ernst Mayr. Mayr is sorta 'the' distinguished gentleman of evoulutionary science and his views are quite conservative, but that's probably a good thing if you're looking for basic information and ideas. It's out in trade paper now so shouldn't be overly expensive. For the length of the book (couple hundred pages), it is comprehensive - though Mayr will cover in a paragraph issues that others write whole books on (hehe... Gould's 'summary' of evolutionary theory is, what, 1500 pages?).

One of the issues Mayr does spend a good deal of time on, however, is the fact vs. theory business with evolution. Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does.

NaddiaAoC

Thank you for the replies.

Ani said, Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does.

This has been my understanding as well. Am I correct in stating that a scientific fact is something that has been proven while a theory is still being tested or debated? When I say "proven" I understand that it's not with certainty. Even solid scientific facts could potentially be disproven. But it seems as if there is a much greater level of support for a fact than a theory. Do you agree?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

NaddiaAoC

Here’s another question. This is more of a personal nature. How does viewing our existence and our origins from an evolutionary or natural standpoint vs. that of a divine purpose affect the value you put on life?

If we were a special creation by God our life has inherent value. If we simply evolved through the blind forces of natural selection our life has no inherent value. If God created us then our life has a purpose of greater significance and even if we die we will live on in one form or another. But if we evolved then our life has no cosmic importance. If I die tonight it really won’t matter except to the few people in this world who care about me, but then they will be dead in a few decades and eventually I will be completely forgotten. So what was the point?

Here is why I ask. I had a patient, a four month old baby, die this past weekend from severe trauma that she sustained in an accident. I found myself thinking, ‘What does it really matter if she dies now or 80 years from now? Sure her family is greatly grieved by her death, but they will eventually die out and nobody will feel her loss.’ In the big picture her life will have meant nothing, and it wouldn’t have meant anymore after 80 years than it did after 4 months unless she happened to be one of the few people to do something so significant as to be remembered for many generations to come. But it seems to me that for most people their lives have no real purpose. Do you think that this lack of inherent meaning to our lives decreases the value that you put on life?

I hope this doesn’t sound insensitive. To me the life of a person, especially a child, is very precious. I felt a tremendous loss as I watched that beautiful little girl die and I cried with her parents as they let her go. It was very emotional. But when I start thinking about the whole picture, what was really lost?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

Johnny Neuron · Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Purpose and purposelessness

Cheryl,

Well, that's a very theoretical question. Ask anyone on the streets if they value life and if their life has a purpose and most likely the answer will be affirmative, albeit with varying convictions. Personally, I have found that most people have some sense of purpose to their lives and feel that we have inherent worth.

Of course, the Bible God doesn't seem to put too much value in the inherent worth of his creation, but I know your thoughts on this. Here's something else about the matter, though: God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did. I guess the idea of placing inherent worth upon a person strictly because of God actually opens more worm cans that we wouldn't think of. (That's not to say He doesn't exist)

I think when people say they have inherent worth or purpose strictly because of God, they really are just saying that they want to be loved and recognized (in this sense, transcendently). But aren't we all not loved and recognized? (Well, you and I are still kind of working on this a bit, aren't we)

So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth. We are the ones who bestow meaning into things. Somebody's got to do it, why not us?

Bradley

NaddiaAoC · Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: Purpose and purposelessness

Johnny,

I understand that most people place value on human life, though not all do. I place a high value on it. But if we are the result of a blind evolutionary process then we have no intrinsic value. The only value our lives have is that which is placed on it by ourselves and others. And that’s my question, does viewing our existence from an evolutionary standpoint decrease or increase your value of human life, or does it remain unaffected?

God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did.

Well, it doesn’t matter whether he needed to make us or not. All that matters is that he did make us. He loved us and valued us enough to create us. Then he loved us so much that he even sent Jesus to die for us (unless you believe the trinity and then he came to die for us himself). The whole idea behind Christianity is supposedly that God loves us and values us. He has a purpose and plan for us. If we live it’s because he wills it, If we die it’s because he has better things in mind for us. There’s always some divine purpose. That gives human life inherent value and worth, as opposed to the animals who, while having some value are not divinely favored like humans.

But aren't we all not loved and recognized?

No. We’re not all loved and recognized. Human life is aborted daily. It has no inherent value. Even many children are born into this world and abandoned or neglected by their families. Life only has value because we assign it value.

So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth.

I do. A deity is not essential for us to value our own lives and one another, but it is essential for us to have intrinsic worth. So my question is, how does this lack of intrinsic worth affect a person’s value of human life?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

LanDroid · Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: Purpose and purposelessness

It's difficult to see how we can value ourselves and others yet have zero intrinsic value, seem like they go hand in hand.

You could turn it around and say that for many believers in God there is little intrinsic value in human life. If you believe correctly, life & death are irrelevant since you're going to the great reward. If you believe incorrectly, your life is absolutely worthless as Sagan documented in the practices of the inquisition and witch trials.

Back to theory vs. fact, it's my understanding a scientific theory is much stronger than the "vernacular" use of that word. A scientific theory has a lot of data to back it up and it has predictive and explanatory accuracy. However to the general public a theory can be whatever a wacko dreams up such as a "conspiracy theory". So it is a misuse of the term to denigrate evolution as being "only a theory". (Sorry, probably preaching to the choir...)


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT