Talk:Evolution as theory and fact/Rewrite

Some semantic confusion that has been used to attack evolution is described.

• There is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of evolution."
  • The word "theory" in science describes an explanation for observed data and experimental data.
  • In common usage, a theory is just a guess, and often a very unrealistic opinion.

This and confusion over the definitions of the word "fact" and the word "evolution" are clear from an investigation of the literature.

Whether evolution is a fact, a theory, or both has been a focus of objections by creationists, explanations by evolution popularizers, and the basis of numerous laws and court cases.

The argument that evolution is uncertain and not well-established because "evolution is just a theory" is actually based on a semantic misunderstanding, and does not have any substance.^[1] In science, a theory is not something uncertain, or a guess, but an explanation of scientific data. However, the statement that "evolution is just a theory" is so common and this creationist argument so weak, that it has become infamous. Even some creationists advise against its use.^[2][3]

However, this still leaves a bewildering variety of confusing and seeingly contradictory statements about evolution. These can all be clarified and with a little background information.

Probably the most frequent complaint about evolution by creationists is captured in the statement that "Evolution is just a theory".^[4][2][5] For example, surveying many of the legal proceedings over the teaching of evolution, creationism and/or intelligent design in the school classrooms in the United States reveals that this claim has been used as part of official school policy^[6][7] in Tennessee,^[8] Alabama,^[9] Georgia,^[10][11][12] Oklahoma,^[13] and Louisiana.^[14] The Cobb County School Board spent about 4 years attempting to to insist that school books would include a sticker stating that, "Evolution is "a theory, not a fact..."^[10] US President Ronald Reagan said in a press conference in 1980 that evolution "is a theory. It is a scientific theory only..."^[15] In the mid-1990s, Tennessee almost passed a bill that would have made it possible to fire any teacher teaching that evolution was a fact and not a theory.^[16]

The complaint that "evolution is just a theory" is not new, and both scientists studying evolution and their fellow scientists from other fields have responded with a variety of attempted clarifications and explanations over the years:

• Stephen Jay Gould: "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."^[17]
• Neil Campbell: "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate..."^[18]
• Ernst Mayr: "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact...And evolutionary change is also simply a fact..."^[19]
• Eugenie Scott: "evolution is a theory...Evolution is a FACT!!!"^[20]
• Richard Lenski: "Evolution...is both a fact and a theory."^[21]
• Carl Sagan: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory."^[22]
• George Simpson: "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."^[23]
• R. C. Lewontin: "...evolution is a fact, not theory"^[24]
• Douglas Futuyama: "...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact..."^[25]
• H. J. Muller: "evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."^[26]
• Kenneth R. Miller: "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."^[27]
• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes: "Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution..."^[28]

Unfortunately, none of these quotes do much to clarify the situation. Instead, they sound like "doubletalk", leading creationists to charge scientists with being deceitful,^{[29][30][31][32][33]} since creationists claim evolution is false^[34] or not "proved".^[35][36]

For example, the evangelical and creationist organization "All About GOD Ministries"^[37] has a website "AllAboutScience.org" that states that the Theory of Evolution "is favored by many scientists to explain phenomena in nature, so much so that it is generally assumed as factual". This website also claims that "Evolution has never been fundamentally proven, and most scientists admit as much'", suggesting that scientists support evolution for no reason except that they choose mindlessly to believe it, or just do so because it is a fad.^[38]

Clearly, all that the proclamations of the scientists have done is muddy the waters, and further confuse the situation.

Adding to the confusion, there is not one but two things in biology called "evolution".^[39] Therefore, it is very common get these two biological meanings of the word "evolution" confused, and for misunderstandings to result.

Evolution refers both to a change process, and also to the explanation for that process. Compare the entries of the following table listing natural phenomena, and the currently most accepted scientific explanations for these phenomena:

Phenomenon	Explanation
The sun moves across the sky, rising and setting daily.	The earth turns on its axis. This is the heliocentric theory.[40]
Flowing electrical current can produce a magnet.	electromagnetic theory[41]
The earth is getting hotter.	theory of global warming[42]
A force called gravity pulls on objects.	theory of gravity[43]
Change of gene distribution in a population.	Explanation for this gene distribution change.[44]
Change of gene distribution in a population is called the "process of evolution"	The explanation for this gene distribution change is called the "theory of evolution"
The process of evolution is often called "evolution".	The theory of evolution is often called "evolution".

Therefore, in biology, the word "evolution" is used for two different things:

1. a change in the distribution of genes in a population.^[45][46]
2. a shorthand for the NeoDarwinist Theory of Evolution, also known as the Theory of Evolution, the currently most-accepted explanation for the change in the gene distribution.^[47]

It might seem strange that the word "evolution" is used for both the thing and the theory that explains it, but a little reflection demonstrates that this is true for many other well-known theories in science as well. For example,

• Theory of Gravity is meant to explain gravity
• Quantum Field Theory describes quantum fields
• String Theory is about strings
• Theory of Global Warming is supposed to explain why the earth is warming.

Word	Vernacular or common meaning	Meaning in science
fact	something true, real, proven	(1) datum, observation (2) theory that matches a lot of data, approaching certainty
theory	a guess	an explanation for observations
evolution	spontaneous advancement, development	(1) change in genes in population (2) shorthand for theory of evolution

The objections by creationists and the seemingly contradictory responses by scientists are the result of misunderstandings. The problems are caused by linguistic confusion. In other words, this objection is rooted in semantics, although there are still underlying disagreements that are obscured by these misunderstandings.^[48] This misunderstanding is so well understood, that many creationists advise against using the statement "evolution is only a theory".^[49][2][3]

• • • • http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm

The words "fact", "theory" and "evolution" have several meanings in English (as do many English words; see Appendix). In particular, the senses that scientists attribute to these words is often different than the meanings of these words in common vernacular usage. This can easily be verified by consulting some dictionaries, cientific texts and papers (see Appendix).

In the popular vernacular, a fact is something that is demonstrably true, and something that is proven, or that could be proven. A fact is real. In popular usage, a theory is no more than a mere guess, or an opinion. And to the layperson, evolution is a change driven by invisible forces for a creature to become more sophisticated or advanced with time.

For example, as the creationist website "allaboutscience.org" reasons, "dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly" , so evolution is obviously false.^[50] This unseen force of evolution has not acted to make dogs more sophisticated so they could fly, or talk, so it cannot be true, and therefore cannot be a fact.

Therefore, in the popular vernacular, to state that a theory is a fact implies that it has been proven true, and therefore is no longer a theory. Stating that something is a theory and a fact simultaneously is nonsensical, if the common meanings of the words "theory" and "fact" are assumed.

However, the common vernacular meanings are not what scientists mean when they use the words "fact", "theory" and "evolution" in their statements. Therefore, the creationist argument is an example of a strawman argument; that is, the mischaracterization of the other side's position as something else, and then the dismissal of the incorrect and unfair rephrasing of the opposing position.

In science, a "fact" is most commonly a piece of data, either an observation or the result of an experiment (see Appendix). A measurement is a "fact". Therefore, the "facts" in science often have error bars, and are repeatable.

In science, a "theory" is not just a guess, but an explanation advanced to explain the observational or experimental evidence (see Appendix). A good scientific theory will explain the evidence, but a poor scientific theory will have to be modified or replaced if it makes predictions that do not fit the data.

Therefore, in science, as in common usage, "facts" and "theories" are not the same thing. "Theories" are constructed to explain "facts".

A less common definition of "scientific fact" is a "theory" that is so well-supported by data that it would be silly not to accept it (at least until another theory that fits the data better is available). This definition obviously is closer to the vernacular definition of the word "fact", but not identical. In the vernacular, a "fact" is the truth and proven, so it would never be replaced by something else.

• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
• http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm

It is very common to compare the "process of evolutionary change" and the "theory of evolution" that explains it, with the "pull of gravity on bodies" with the "theory of gravity" that explains it. One of the first was probably Charles Darwin himself:

"In an 1837 notebook Darwin jotted down this reflection: 'Before the attraction of gravity was discovered...astronomers might have said God ordered each planet to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal created with certain forms in certain countries. But how much more simple and sublime to let attraction act according to certain law.'"^[51]

paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."^[52]

William H. Munk, writing in Utah's Deseret News, stated that:

Hallelujah! Senator Buttars' bill to teach intelligent design in school has passed. Evolution is only a theory, and students should be presented with other options. Can we now teach our children that it's perfectly acceptable to jump off the top of a church? Gravity, after all, is just a theory.^[53]

Edna DeVore writes in space.com that " It’s funny how no one argues that gravity is 'only a theory,' yet many dismiss evolution as 'only a theory.'"^[54]

This has even produced some satire like the piece Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory published in the Onion in 2005:

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University."^[55]

From The Evolution of Ken Miller, Linda Heuman, Brown Alumni Magazine, November/December 2005:

Miller argues that the position of most anti-evolutionists is really scientific illiteracy. Everything in science—from gravity to relativity—is “just a theory,” he points out. If an explanation comes along that more successfully accounts for the observations and evidence, science adopts it, replacing the earlier “truth” with the newer, more complete one. If someone, for example, can come up with a better explanation than gravity for why your spilled coffee falls on the floor instead of the ceiling, science will happily give up the “theory” of gravity. Science is always provisional, Miller explains, but that does not mean that it is controversial, or a matter of opinion, faith, or personal preference. Similarly, evolution via natural selection is a “theory” only in this provisional, scientific sense.

Gravity	Evolution
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other.	Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity.	Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.
Gravity is a "fact".	Evolution is a "fact".
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation.	The "facts" of evolution require an explanation.
Aristotle and Galileo created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Newton created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes but turned out to require refinement.	Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations. Darwin created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes, but turned out to require refinement.
Einstein's explanation is a refinement of Newton's explanation of gravity. Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity.	The Neo-Darwinist explanation is a refinement of Darwin's explanation of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution.
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity.	The Neo-Darwinist explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory."	Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."

Given that this objection to evolution is a matter of semantics, it is worthwhile to examine carefully what the words "fact", "theory" and "evolution" mean in various contexts. The situation is clarified by consulting dictionaries and scientific and creationist publications.

The English word "fact" has several meanings. This can be verified by consulting the list of definitions in a dictionary, and the discussions of "scientific fact" that appear in scientific publications.^[56]

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996) defines the word "fact" in a nonscientific context as

(1) something that actually exists; reality; truth.

(2) something known to exist or have happened.

The WordNet definitions of fact^[57] are:

1. a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2. a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3. an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4. a concept whose truth can be proved "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

Creationists either intentionally or inadvertantly apply this conventional definition of the word fact when discussing evolution. For example, the AllAboutScience website states that:

The Theory of Evolution is currently the most popular concept of how life reached its current state. Evolution as a biological mechanism is driven by natural selection. This theory is favored by many scientists to explain phenomena in nature, so much so that it is generally assumed as factual in most studies.^[38]

The suggestion is, that because the Theory of Evolution is popular with scientists, and on no other basis, it is assumed to be a fact. This is incorrect.

1. Primary meaning of "fact in science"
The most common definition of fact in science, or "scientific fact" is as a piece of data, either from observation of the natural world or as the result of an experiment. For example:

• The United States National Academy of Sciences defines a "fact" as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"^[58]

• Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated in his renowned essay Evolution as Fact and Theory that "Facts are the world's data."^[52]

• WordNet at Princeton University defines a "scientific fact" as "an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"^[59]

• The United States National Academy of Sciences publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) states that "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation."^[60]

• The United States National Park Service glossary defines a "fact" as:

In science, a fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded at some point in the future.^[61]

• Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996) gives a third meaning of the word "fact" as

(3) A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: 'Scientists gather facts about plant growth.'

• Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, defines a "scientific fact" as "any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact."^[62]

2. Secondary meaning of "fact in science"
Confusingly and less commonly, the phrase "scientific fact" is used to indicate something that is very certain. That is, another less common usage of the term "scientific fact", or "fact" in science is to refer to a very well established theory.

For example, the US National Academy of Sciences publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) points out that:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.^[60]

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould confirms this in his famous essay, "Evolution as fact and theory" when he wrote that ""fact" does not mean "absolute certainty"...In science, "fact" can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"^[52]

1. set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.^[63]

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess."^[52]

The US National Academy of Sciences defines a theory in science as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."^[58]

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated that "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."^[52]

The word "evolution" has a different meaning in common usage than it does in biology. Evolution in conventional language corresponds to the improvement, development, maturation or refinement of something. Biological evolution does not necessarily result in more complicated or better organisms, however.

This semantic difference is exploited to advantage by creationists, either intentionally or inadvertantly. For example, the AllAboutScience.org states that:

Evolution is technically defined as: "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." As it is most famously used, "evolution" is the process by which an organism becomes more sophisticated over time and in response to its environment.^[38]

After having defined evolution incorrectly in this way, creationists have a strawman to be freely attacked.

Another creationist tactic is to mis-define evolution to include biological evolution and many other divergent processes as well. The claim is then made that if there is uncertainty in any of the processes, then the explanations of all of the processes are fatally flawed. For example, Kent Hovind includes no fewer than six different unrelated processes in his own personal definition of "evolution", which is not shared by anyone but other creationists:

1. Cosmic evolution — origin of time, space and matter (essentially referring to the Big Bang).
2. Stellar and planetary evolution — origin of stars and planets.
3. Chemical evolution — origin of other elements from hydrogen.
4. Organic evolution — origin of animate life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution — origin of major 'kinds' (for a creationist treatment see Created kinds).
6. Microevolution — origin of variations within 'kinds'.^[64][65]

An example of a dictionary definition of the word "evolution" is:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.

2.

a. The process of developing.

b. Gradual development.

3. Biology.

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.^[63]

Although there are many places in the sciences where the term "evolution is used such as in "stellar evolution" or "chemical evolution",^[66], the field in which most of the conflicts with creationism arise is biology. In biology there are several things that are referred to as evolution as well, but the most common two meanings of the word "evolution" are the process of evolution and as a shorthand expression for the theory of evolution.

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould describes the "fact" of the observed evolution process as being explained by "the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."^[52]

• new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis

from

• http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

---

The Democratic Party politician William Jennings Bryan (1860 - 1925) "became convinced that the teaching of Evolution as a fact instead of a theory caused the students to lose faith in the Bible, first, in the story of creation, and later in other doctrines, which underlie the Christian religion."^[1][2]

---

• "Evolution, we hear from anti-evolutionists, is "only a theory" and should not be presented as "fact." Of course evolution is a theory, retort the evolutionary scientists. Theories are much more important than facts! Antievolutionists respond that even if evolution is a theory in the scientific sense (of explanation), it isn't a very good theory, and isn't supported by the evidence....

"One hears from many scientists, "Evolution is a FACT!!!" The meaning here is that evolution, the "what happened," is so well supported that we don't argue about it, anymore than we argue about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. We accept that change through time happened, and go on to try to explain how. What we mean and what is heard is often different, however. What the public hears when scientists say "Evolution is FACT!" is that we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't. "We must learn to present evolution not as "a fact" in this dogmatic sense, but "matter of factly," as we would present heliocentrism and gravitation as "facts," but they are not "facts" in my definition of "confirmed observations." Instead, they are powerful inferences from many observations, which are not in themselves unquestioned, but used to build more detailed understandings. "From the standpoint of philosophy of science, the "facts of evolution" are things like the anatomical structural homologies such as the tetrapod forelimb, or the biochemical homologies of cross species protein and DNA comparisons, or the biogeographical distribution of plants and animals. The "facts of evolution" are observations, confirmed over and over, such as the presence and/or absence of particular fossils in particular strata of the geological column (one never finds mammals in the Devonian, for example). From these confirmed observations we develop an explanation, an inference, that what explains all of these facts is that species have had histories, and that descent with modification has taken place. Evolution is thus a theory, and one of the most powerful theories in science."^[3]

atheism is religion

evolution is religion

science is religion

again an abuse of the word religion a semantic problem

like evolution is just a theory

the theory of evolution by means of natural selection vs

the theory of falling by means of gravitation

I like that example. I might just have to swipe it for the rewrite ! And of course, there are many other things that can influence evolution besides natural selection, just like there are many other things that can influence "falling" (that is, an object moving towards the center of the earth) besides gravity (electromagnetic effects, air friction, air movement and entrainment forces, collisions with cosmic rays and other particles, radiation pressure, etc).--

---

both evolution and gravity are both observational and experimental sciences. Both can be seen in the lab. Both can be observed in the field. Both currently and historically. So they are perfect analogies in that sense. However, just because a field of study is only observational does not mean it is not a science. For example, consider volcanology, oceanography, meteorology, seismology, geomagnetism, astronomy, etc. All observational only, and all sciences. And many with historical data only.

1. apparent antigravitational forces on cosmic scales
2. difficulty reconciling gravity with other forces
3. confusion and misunderstanding about quantum gravity and where to look for it
4. lack of observations of gravitons, or other features
5. Some experiments that appear to have too much variance in the results, or some bias, etc
6. problems with mathematics in some gravitational theories
7. problems understanding about what to do mathematically inside the Schwarzschild radius
8. not enough observational evidence for some features like miniblack holes, Hawking radiation or whatever
9. not understanding the relation of gravity and dark matter
10. variational formulation of field equations; what does this mean exactly? Why are they optimal?
11. should cosmological constant be incorporated or not?
12. is there a stochastic aspect to gravity or not?
13. why does gravity exist?
14. Why does gravity appear mainly in the attractive form?

• Ann Druyan reviewed book chapter on issue
• National Park system glossary [2]

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. from NAS paper [3] Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National

• National Center for Science Education, "What’s Wrong with ‘Theory Not Fact’ Resolutions," National Center for Science Education, December 7, 2000, http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8643_whats_wrong_with_theory_not__12_7_2000.asp(accessed June 12, 2005).

NAS definition of "fact":

• "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all

practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" from [4]

• • scientific american confirmation of this [5]

July 2002 issue 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up By John Rennie

• • National academy press [6]
  • also appears on User talk:Scientizzle, a potential ally !!
  • physics website examination and defintionn [7]

• Fact: "1) something that actually exists; reality; truth. 2) something known to exist or have happened. 3) A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: 'Scientists gather facts about plant growth.'"

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language ("WEUDEL") (1996) Definition(s)[8]

• blog discussion of fact and theory [9]

• GWU discussion of fact and theory and evolution[10]

• There is something unique about scientific fact, and that uniqueness has much to do with the often tedious practice of making telling empirical observations. The primary criterion of good science must remain that it has been repeatedly tested by measurements--no matter how difficult they may prove to be--and found to be in excellent accord with them.

• Study guide for physical anthropology, online edition [faculty.ircc.edu/faculty/jlett/Study%20Guide%20for%20Physical%20Anthropology%20Online%20Edition.pdf]

• [eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000604/01/Complete.doc ] phd thesis

• Without such a rigorous standard of truth, science will have little defense against the onslaughts of the creationists and postmodernists, for whom it is just one of many ways to grasp the world. How could we ever hope to defend science against such attacks if it were based only on the opinions of its leading practitioners? Mathematics is not enough, no matter how beautiful. Even Einstein, who helped foster this theoretical style, insisted his ideas had to have observable consequences.

The essence of scientific truth rests in the requirement that it should have strong accordance with the natural world that exists outside our minds and beyond human artifice--what Peirce called "the vagaries of me and you." Experimenters must continue ripping away at new ideas to make sure this accordance indeed holds true. Their skepticism plays a role like death in natural selection--only the strongest survive to take their place among what actually lives on.

In this evolutionary metaphor, speculative theorizing plays a crucial role, too, by helping to ensure that science investigates the many philosophical niches where truth might lurk. My one caveat is that hypotheses resulting from such wide-ranging explorations of possible theory space must ultimately lead to testable consequences--a process that may take years, even decades--if science is to advance. Otherwise, theorists are doing metaphysics, not physics.

Michael Riordan, Science Fashions and Scientific Fact, Physics Today, August 2003, page 50.

[11]

• I appear to have found some text that appears to be evidence of plagiarism.

A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge--it becomes a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. [12]

• wordweb definition (lifted from NAS?) 1. An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) [13]

• carlton high school David Dice website [14] facts are scientific observations

• wordnet at princeton university:

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) [15]

• lookwayup dictionary scientific fact

1. [n] an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). Synonyms scientific_fact Related terms Type of observation [16]

• Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)

Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC Main Entry: scientific fact Part of Speech: n Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact. [17]

• the free dictionary Noun 1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

observation - facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor" [18]

• from website claiming a scientific fact is a theory [19]

• Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006.

• Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are poorly supported. Others, such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, or that DNA is the genetic material, are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. It is a mistake to think of a fact as something that we absolutely know, with complete certainty, to be true, for we do not know this of anything. Futuyma - Evolution Fact and Theory.

• [20] is a comparison of literature about creationism, ID etc

[21]--Filll 20:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book on fact and theory:

Just A Theory: Exploring The Nature Of Science, Moti Ben-Ari, Prometheus Books (April 8, 2005), ISBN-10: 1591022851.

• Isn't Evolution Just a Theory, video clip from PBS 2001 series Evolution

Compares gravity and evolution

• Argument: Evolution is true science, not ‘just a theory’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [22] Lenny Flank article IS EVOLUTION "JUST A THEORY"? 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• arguments creationists should not use includes theory not fact ??
• recent florida law include "scientific theory of" as a compromise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]