4 ms·
This is literally semantics. The vast majority of people know what an "accepted fact" is, and they also know what a "proposed model of reality" is (even if the
by pcrh 12y ago
This is literally semantics.
The vast majority of people know what an "accepted fact" is, and they also know what a "proposed model of reality" is (even if they don't use such phrases).
The opposition to evolutionary theory as a model of reality is a topic that principally obsesses only a specific population: American Protestants.
In most of the Western world, including in the Catholic Church with its over 1 billion adherents, evolution is an "accepted fact" (or "scientific theory" however that may be rendered semantically).
- astrodust 12y agoSome propose using the word theorem to differentiate between these two meanings.
- tjradcliffe 12y agoI wrote a novel based in part around the idea that one could prove something like Boltzmann's H-theorem (which has problems of its own) for evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/B00KBH5O8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421271824&sr=8-1&keywords=darwin%27s+theorem http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/... Darwin's Theorem would start with the facts about genetic material--the probability distributions for replication--and use further distributions of features, consequences for reproductive advantage, and so on to demonstrate that it is mathematically necessary for evolution to give access to a more-or-less unbounded adaptive landscape. The book is actually mostly about sex, violence, politics, religion, regret and redemption, so it's not as dry as that probably makes it sound!
- redblacktree 12y agoI have absolutely heard people say, "Evolution is just a theory"
- scott_s 12y agoIt's not just semantics. Maybe some times it is, but not always, and I even think, not usually. Many people don't actually understand the basics of scientific theories, evidence and falsification. It requires going beyond learning just the "scientific process", and going into the actual philosophy of science. In my experience, that is not commonly known.
- pcrh 12y agoStressing the term "theory" by creationists attacking evolution is a rhetorical device intended to imply that "even scientists don't know". Obviously, scientists, and other educated people, know that this attack is misguided. However, recognizing that such arguments are indeed rhetorical, rather than logical, is a step towards not having to go through them again and again...
- scott_s 12y agoI'm making a different point. People who make that attack have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. They don't understand that it is not possible to prove a theory correct, only falsify it. They don't understand that quantity and quality of supporting evidence matter. They don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence". They don't understand that their arguments could be levied against any scientific theory, including ones that they accept. That they can do this means they don't understand how science works. But, nor do a lot of people who don't make such rhetorical attacks. I think that the philosophy of science is an easy thing to miss - it's possible to make it through a Bachelor's program in science without really being forced to think about it.
- pcrh 12y ago>They don't understand that their arguments could be levied against any scientific theory, including ones that they accept. That they can do this means they don't understand how science works. Exactly, which is why epistemological arguments won't win the evolution versus creation debate.