Evolution/Theory

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> Evolution itself is not
> really a theory, it is simply a body of consistent observations in which life
> on earth has progressed from very simple forms that existed billions of years
> ago, to more complicated multicellular forms around 1 billion years ago, to
> fairly complicated life forms around 700 - 600 million years ago, through the
> dinosaurs, etc.  None of this can really be disputed.  The evidence is
> overwhelming from every area of science - the fossil record,
> geologic deposits, astronomical observations, radioactive dating,
> etc.
>
> The theory part, where the controversy exists, is simply the mechanism that
> caused all this change.  Was is natural selection as proposed by
> Charles Darwin or is it perhaps a punctuated evolution caused by
> global (or maybe local) catastrophes, or something else that we
> haven't discovered yet?


Frankly, I think evolution -is- a theory. Creationists will attack
this as a weak point, but I would disagree. Consider some analogies,
playing fast and loose with the precise details:

1. Hypothesis: there is an unseen force at a distance that
       causes objects to fall toward one another.
2. Observation: planetary motion
3. Theory: Newton's gravitation

1. Observation: planetary motion is not 'perfectly' predicted
2. Hypothesis: space and time are actually spacetime
3. Theory: Einstein's general relativity

1. Hypothesis: species evolve naturally, common ancestry, etc.
2, Observation: The Beagle Expedition, etc.
3. Theory: Darwin's Evolution

1. Hypothesis: evolution has a profound biochemical and physical basis
2, Observation: geology, cosmology, biochemistry, etc
3. Theory: modern notion of evolution


Apologies for the utter lack of sophistication in the description,
but the point is there. I don't think the theory is the observation,
as stated above. Observations can be made in the absence of any
theory (but need not be), The theory is the framework that explains
the observations, the result of which determines whether the
hypothesis can likely be accepted as 'fact.'

The zeroth-order criticism heard from creationists is that "evolution
is only a theory." I would agree that it is a theory, but to say
'only' as a negative criticism is as absurd as claiming that
gravitation is only a theory, as is quantum mechanics. The obvious
implication is that they are wrong because they are 'only' theories.
Well, let them come up with alternatives to gravitation and QM as
well. Despite whatever scientific arguments might be forwarded, they
really would be nothing more than "god makes the planets go 'round,
and god makes atoms go 'round too." Because that is the central tenet
of creationism: GOD FIRST PERIOD.



Stefan Jeglinski