From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:31:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania



In article <29809.2B2D9219@puddle.fidonet.org>
     Judy.Sneed@f70.n147.z1.fidonet.org (Judy Sneed) writes:

>Thank you so much for saying the above. For some reason, lots of folks
>seem to be unable to distinguish between supporting evidence of a
>theory and actual proof of a theory. To prove a theory one must have
>absolutely *NO* evidence that does not support the theory. Also, no
>one else should be able to produce any contrary evidence either. If
>contrary evidence exists, the theory is not correct in that particular
>and *must* be restructured to include ALL of the evidence, whether the
>theorist likes it or [not.]

I'm sorry to quote that whole passage, but I want to make it clear
that Judy has some gross misconceptions about science.  In fact she
didn't even get the main point of the post to which she was
responding.  This next sentence was in the paragraph that Judy was
thanking a previous person for writing:

> JG> I think it is important for us to remember that science does
> JG> *not* prove anything. 

Compare that sentence with Judy's prior paragraph.

Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in thinking with regard to
science is the recognition that any and every thought that we have can
be wrong.  By wrong I mean that the way we think the universe or parts of
the universe behave may not be the way that it actually does.  We
cannot ever be certain that any given theory is correct, and that is
what JG was trying to make clear.  Judy seems to think that we can be
certain of some things but not of others.  This is not the way that
scientists think.  We have varying levels of certainty about all of
our theories, but none of them have been or can be proven in the sense
that Judy seems to be implying.

When I read Judy's post, I guessed that there were some theories in
particular that Judy wanted to put into the "unproven" category.  Lo
and behold in her next post I found:

In article <29810.2B2D921B@puddle.fidonet.org>
     Judy.Sneed@f70.n147.z1.fidonet.org (Judy Sneed) writes:

> MR> Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
>
> MR> For scientists there is no controversy about the fact of
> MR> evolution, and there hasn't been one for well over a hundred 
> MR> years.
>
>I don't want to get into a big debate with you. Mr. Herr has asked
>that we do not do so. 

No, Mr. Herr has asked that we not do so here.  I am quite willing to
have a long debate with you privately.

>However, please remember that saying "scientists" alone is not
>correct. There are many highly qualified scientists who believe in
>Creation. 

This largely depends on what you mean by creation.  If by creation,
you mean NOT evolution, then you're wrong.  Based on current evidence,
the fact of evolution is undeniable.  Many scientists believe in God
(i.e. a creator), but virtually no scientists who are familiar with
biology dispute the fact of evolution.  The controversy is a political
one, NOT a scientific one.

>If you must discuss the evolutionary viewpoint, please remember to
>say "most scientists."  Children need to know that there is still
>major controversy with evidence on this subject. 

There is NOT a major *scientific* controversy, and that is why some of
us here are so upset about the misrepresentation of scientists by
people like you.

>Internet: Judy.Sneed@f70.n147.z1.fidonet.org

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science