Skip to main content
news

Re: Evolution

paulh
SubjectRe: Evolution
Frompaulh
Date2002-04-18 21:08 (2002-04-18 21:08)
Message-ID<f76ubuorskft7tdh91bgq8fivlgevvqdgf@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsMarc A. Moniz

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:45:39 GMT, "Marc A. Moniz" <mmonizNOSPAM@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

paulh
People seem to confuse the term theory with something that isn't

Marc A. Moniz
proven, don't

paulh
they?

Marc A. Moniz
Yes, this is a common misconception. Scientific theories are not speculations or even well-supported hypotheses. A scientific theory is a coherent body of interconnected statements, strongly supported by evidence and based on reasoning that exaplains observations or phenomena. It is a complex of statements and thus does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test. Theories evolve as they are confronted with new data. Parts of the theory may be discarded or modified and new parts may be added as new information is gathered. It is the best explanation that we have based on the evidence that we have at the time, whether it's the Wave Theory or Particle Theory; the String Theory, Bubble Theory, or Big Bang Theory; or if it's Lamarkism, Darwinsim, or the Modern Synthesis.

Many years ago when I was a yoof I read a creationist tract. It took a couple of days for me to digest it and refute it cos it was cleverly worded. One of the things it did was state that Theories (scientific ones at least) were no better than a hypothesis and that science was therefore admitting that evolution was just an educted guess. Eventually I figured out that this was misrepresentation of the facts....and I tried to never forget that again..

paulh