From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Followup-To: talk.origins
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:41:15 GMT

Followups are set to talk.origins, where this topic belongs.

In article <1992Apr7.133637.21999@bradford.ac.uk>
	K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:
> 2) Popular science quotes evolution as a fact. I believe however that the
>    relevant specialist divisions discuss the 'Theory of Evolution' as the
>    best hypotheses that fits the observed facts. 

When scientists talk about the "theory" of evolution, they are not
claiming that it isn't a fact.  They are talking about something else
completely (they use the phrases "fact of evolution" and "theory of
evolution" to distinguish between them).  Gould wrote an excellent essay
on the topic titled (off the top of my head) "Evolution as Fact and
Theory."  I think it originally appeared in "Discover" magazine and
has since been reprinted in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_.

The confusion is caused by "evolution" being able to refer to different
things (not to mention the several illegitimate meanings which
creationists wish to toss in to make it easier to discredit).  Ms.
Haigh-Hutchinson's statement above depends on a confusion between
two very different things:

evolution-1: The common biological ancestry of all life on earth from
a small number (probably one) of ancestral forms.  This is commonly
called the "fact of evolution."  While, like anything else in science,
it is not "proven," it is established to the point where no rational,
unbiased scientist would refuse to accept it.  
	(This places it in the same standing as, say, a heliocentric
solar system.  There are still "scientists" who accept a geocentric
solar system, but not because that is where the evidence leads them.
It is because their religious beliefs require it to be that way.)

evolution-2: (One example) The process of random variation coupled
with natural selection, which is theorized to have been a major
mechanism for evolution-1.  When scientists talk about a "theory of
evolution," they are talking about a proposed mechanism by which
evolution-1 could have occured (there are several accepted mechanisms;
most of the arguments are over their relative importance for "large"
evolutionary changes).

I want to stress that each process (mechanism) itself is *not* merely
theorized; it has been directly observed in action.  The only "theory"
is how these processes interact to explain evolution-1.

> 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute. Iunderstood
>    the question to refer to evolution from one species into another.

Evolution of new species has been directly observed in nature and also
caused by selective breeding.  Over in talk.origins we have a FAQ which
documents several examples.

> I believe the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the
> theory remains an hypothesis.

I'm sure you "believe" lots of things.  In the light of your being
unfamiliar with, for example, known speciation events -- can you
explain why you are in a position to pass legitimate judgement on
evolution (any of the meanings of the word)?

Also, it sounds like you don't understand the difference between
"hypothesis" and "theory" (when used by a scientist).  The words
cannot be used interchangeably, as you have done here.

This treatment is simplified:  A "theory" is an explanation for (and
predictor of) data which has already been quite successful when put
to the test (e.g., the "theory" of gravitation, electricity, atoms).
As "explanations for data" go, a "theory" is the top of the line.
A common creationist argument that evolution is "only a theory" is
like saying that your car is "only a Rolls Royce."  (That argument
is also false, as described near the top of this article.)

Finally, if you look in _Science and Creationism_ (Ashley Montagu, Ed.),
Dr. Cuffey's essay lists technical references for more than a hundred
transitional forms at all taxonomic levels.  We also have, in talk.origins,
several FAQs which deal with particular transitions as documented in the
fossil record.

Anyone with more questions on the topic is welcome to drop by talk.origins
or contact me via Email.  A word of warning: articles passing uninformed
judgement on the topic (such as the one I'm replying to) do not go over
well in that forum.
-- 
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com