Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Bernard,
>
> Many thanks for the feedback. I can see that in
> some respects I've been trying to run before I can
> walk .
>
> You write: "The modern synthesis is as firmly
> established as any scientific theory we have."
>
> This is the thing, though. How Evolution works is,
> as yourself and others admit, a theory; it is not
> an established scientific fact.
> The same thing is found in Cosmology. Theory
> heaped upon theory but little in the way of hard
> core scientific fact.
> And, like it or not, to all intents and purposes a
> theory is a belief.
Two points (at least)1) evolution- "change over time of a population" is a
fact and 2) a scientific theory is not just a "belief" --from a previous post:
Milton A. Rothman, The Science Gap. Dispelling the Myths and Understanding the Reality of Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992.
p. 61 [theory] “In popular usage, a theory is little more than a hypothesis or a guess. But to a scientist a theory is an elaborate structure of observation, hypothesis, general principles, deductions, mathematical analysis, and experimental verification. To a physicist, the term ‘kinetic theory’ represents a system for calculating the properties of gases starting with the equations of motion of the gas molecules. There is no guesswork involved. To a physicist, the term ‘quantum theory’ represents a set of equations from which the properties and behavior of all particles, atoms, molecules, and radiation can be calculated. This theory is the most thoroughly verified system of knowledge in history. At this state of the game there is no doubt that the theory, though incomplete does work. Chemists can now use quantum theory to calculate the structure of reasonably complex molecules as well as the results of chemical reactions, starting from basic principles and working up from the bottom.”
p. 106 “Theories, being human descriptions of reality, can change as better observations are explained by more detailed theories. But, as we have seen above, newer and future theories cannot contradict the observations that have already been made, unless those observations are grossly in error. No laws of motion can ignore the fact that the speed of light is a constant. It is impossible for a future theory of gravitation to show that objects repel each other by a gravitational force--unless that repulsion is so weak that it has never been observed.”
Cathleen Loving. 1997. “From the Summit of Truth to Its Slippery Slopes: Science Education’s Journey Through Positivist-Postmodern Territory,” American Educational Research Journal 34: 421-452.
p. 427. ‘Theories in science consist of a closely related system of statements, whether they be accepted laws, propositions, assumptions, or rules of procedure that together serve to predict, analyze, and explain phenomena in nature. (Terms like fruitful, rigorous, core, center, fringe are often used to describe a theory’s usefulness, stability, or general acceptance.) Plate tectonic theory, evolutionary theory, quantum theory are examples of contemporary, highly complex systems of explanation, prediction, and analysis.
Thus, the theory of evolution is as secure and warranted as any of these other scientific theories. When scientists try to speak accurately, they avoid the words “proven” “truth” etc. What we can say is that the current theory of evolution (the so-called synthetic theory of evolution) which was set forth in 1937 by Theodosius Dobzhansky.is as “proven” as any other scientific theory. The synthetic theory reflects the advances in scientific knowledge and method since Darwin. The most important are the addition of the Mendelian laws concerning heredity; that heredity is determined by specific genes located on chromosomes; the methodology of using mathematics of population dynamics and the use of precise quantitative experiments
The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new knowledge accumulates BUT, as Rothman pointed out above, new observations (such as the existence of DNA, the genetic code, etc.) have not contradicted or refuted any of the basic postulates of the theory of evolution.
Bernard
>
> I realise that many here will hold their hands up
> in horror and accuse me of being willfully
> ignorant.
> That's okay because I know that that is not true
> of me. I am not as well-formally-educated as many
> here, and my sense of Logic is, I admit, sadly
> lacking, but I do know a 'con' when I see one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
