Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 1

message: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
Actually the idea "evolution is a fact and a theory" has been published repeatedly and is a common phrase as well as a commonly misunderstood phrase. For example, consider the following:
*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Laurence Moran, Talkorigins, 1993
*Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
*R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism
*Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
*Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
*Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
*H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism
*Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
*Evolution: Fact and Theory, Richard E. Lenski, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2000
*Fact and theory misconception, Adrian Barnett
*Carl Sagan, "Cosmos," Random House, Page 27: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." 
*George Simpson, a famous American zoologist, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact," quoted in G. Bowden & J. Collyer, "Quotable Quotes for Creationists," Creation Science Movement, Pamphlet # 228, 1982-JAN, Page 1.
* H.J. Muller, "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?", 1966-MAY: 177 leading American biologists sign a manifesto which stated that the organic evolution of all living species is a fact of science that is a well established as the earth is round.
*Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA
Since this is such a common phrase, it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to have an article examining this phrase and what it means. This is particularly true since it is probably the dominant misunderstanding of evolution.--Filll 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purported reason for deletion

message: Filll, I vehemently disagree with this but this is what the article implies! For example if we use Futyama's version: evolution is the claim that "organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors". This is clearly a hypothesis and also a theory but is it a fact??
# FACT - An observation or a piece of data. A measurement or some evidence or the result of an experiment.
# FACT - A hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence
It is clearly not a piece of data and is only a fact in sense 2.
I think it is totally wrong to imply 2 is not a scientific usage of the word fact. In doing so you reach the absurd conclusion that EVOLUTION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT. I think you are well meaning well here but in danger of adding a great deal of confusion.
I strikes me that you have taken the puzzle "how can evolution be both a fact and theory" and solved it in wrong way. (Probably after reading too much Gould!) — Axel147 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As on the controversy page, I do not quite understand what you are talking about. There might be a typographic error or something. I have to look carefully but I do not see it. --Filll 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution not a scientific fact? 

message: Filll, let me try this one more time. I beg you to revise your claim that evolution is a piece of data in a experiment. It never has been, never will be. And even allowing for more than one meaning of evolution it cannot possibly be justified like this.
It appears that you (and many others) have been bamboozled by the ambiguity in Gould's famous piece. But you have acknowledged Gould's inconsistency in using fact as "datum" so why don't you go a step further and admit that in ALL cases in the literature evolution is only a fact in the sense of being a "hypothesis highly substantiated with evidence".
That the earth is at least 3.6 billion years old is also a fact but not because it is a single observation: it is fact because it is supported by an entire body of evidence, including several independent dating methods support this claim. Evolution is no different and the sooner you recognise this the better. 
Douglas Futuyama has explained "the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." Ernst Mayr writes "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact." And George Simpson, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact." 
The point is that evolution is not fact in the same way the sky is blue by virtue of a single experimental observation. It has become a fact as a result of the accumulation of a huge body of evidence: many supporting experiments and hypotheses of different kinds. If you still are unsure about this please have a look at this which states it I think more clearly than I can: Evolution: Fact, Theory Controversy
Please do not persist with your highly confusing and bogus argument (at least not without providing evidence for it in the literature). — Axel147 13:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you loud and clear. And I responded at Creationism vs. Evolution: Theory vs. Fact. I now know your position, or at least some approximation of it. I understand what is going on pretty well I think.   This cannot be addressed with anything but scholarship. And that is all there is to it.--Filll 14:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your misgivings. Which is why, for the last few weeks at least, I have been slowly rewriting this article to make it far clearer, with many more references. I will make very clear the differing meanings of the word "fact", of the word "theory" and the word "evolution" as well. You are quite right when you say gravity is an observable, and therefore fact, and evolution is an observable, and therefore fact. And gravity is a theory, and so is evolution. So both are facts and theories. The difficulty comes in trying to parse all the quotes from biologists on this subject: 
* Stephen Jay Gould: "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."
* Neil Campbell: "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate..."
* 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..."
* Richard Lenski: "Evolution...is both a fact and a theory."
* Carl Sagan: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory."
* George Simpson: "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."
* R. C. Lewontin: "...evolution is a fact, not theory"
* Douglas Futuyama: "...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact..."
* 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."
* Kenneth R. Miller: "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."
* Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes: "Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution..."
In addition, there are numerous proclamations by creationists about it being a fact and or a theory, so the entire issue gets extremely messy. Another problem is that some common biology quotes use "fact" in two or three different ways so things are pretty ugly. This is not a place where science can hold its head up high and say they have done a good job, which exactly is what causes it to be such a hotbed of confusion. But thank you for noticing. A better article is coming. Never fear.--Filll 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I thnk you are completely right Ms. Barr. I have always looked somewhat askance at biologists (being a mathematical physicist). I realize the systems they are working with are complicated, but they do not do themselves any favors in needlessly complicated terminology, and very lousy popularization of their subject, IMHO. Rest assured, the new version of this article (when I get off my duff to finish it) will make this far clearer. I do not like people saying "my theory is so well established it approaches a fact and it even IS a fact". Unfortunately, numerous biologists have said this. I could wring their necks. Nevertheless, I have to write the article and explain this mess.--Filll 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution '''not''' a piece of data from an experiment

message: This article isn't necessary. The parent article was recently split, and there is no need to create very small, very specific articles that fragment information and hence make it harder to find and reduce readability. - RoyBoy 800 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Misunderstandings about evolution]] 

message: On scientism: I have had this discussion many times with a variety of creationists. What is often done, when this is probed to its depths, is a little fancy footwork with the semantics. Just as multiple definitions of the word "theory" that can cause confusion (either intentional or otherwise) and multiple definitions of the words "evolution" and "fact" that cause misundestandings, there are multiple definitions of the word "religion". In the rewrite of this article, I intend to bring out this bit of confusion. If one looks in the dictionary, one of the meanings of the word "religion" is something persued with passion (which is also close to one of the meanings of the word "science"). Therefore, if you are an enthusiastic plumber, or clean toilets with diligence, according to definitions creationists like to use, you can be said to be doing science, or following a religion. They do not uniformly apply these definitions of course, otherwise everything is defined as both a science and a religion. They do use these alternative definitions as needs be to attack evolution and science however, attempting to confuse the issue, or smear science and evolution as "religion" and therefore no better than believe in Genesis, and not worthy of being taught in schools. This kind of attack is also very valuable for enraging scientists and making them look like fools to the admiring throngs of "true believers" in a debate who nod approvingly at all of these kinds of points.--Filll 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen and the art of plumbing :) .... dave souza, talk 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly :) --Filll 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plumbing is a science and Cleaning Toilets is a religion

message: "Gravity" is not a theory nor is "Evolution". Darwin’s "Theory of Evolution by natural selection" is a 'scientific theory' in such a sense however "evolution" itself is purely a fact. Similar to gravity. Gravity itself is a fact. Gravity is real and it happens just like evolution. However the "Theory of Gravity" put forth by many physicists such as Einstein is a "scientific theory". It is important to differentiate the difference between "Evolution" and "The theory of evolution" which this article does not do.Wikidudeman 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct. I am rewriting this article to make it more clear. The words "gravity" and "evolution" are used for two different things: the actual observation, and the theory that explains that observation. This will be hopefully clearer in the rewritten version.--Filll 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, nuanced language is lost on those who are strict literalists (whether it be a bible or science).  Every time I read these kind of sentences, I think to myself, "more ammo to the creationists."  Orangemarlin 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. What I am saying is that there is a difference between "Evolution" and "The theory of evolution" the first being a fact and the latter being a theory. Although in this sense "Darwins theory of evolution" is a 'fact' in laymen terms. It's just misleading to state that "Evolution is a fact and a theory". 'Evolution' is just a fact.Wikidudeman 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a fact under one definition of evolution, and a theory under another. Consider the following usages: "According to evolution, all life on Earth is related by common descent." Or "Evolution says that new species arise from previous ones through speciation." In both cases, "evolution" is really shorthand for "the theory of evolution". It's very common to shorten "theory of X" to just "X", especially in colloquial contexts. That's how we can likewise say "According to general relativity..." rather than "According to the theory of general relativity...". It's just a language quirk. That's what people usually mean when they say that "evolution is both a theory and a fact": evolution, the word, can refer either to the theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), or the process of evolution (evolution). (Or, in other cases, they mean that the theory of evolution is, in the same colloquial sense as the theory of gravity, a "fact", because of how well-supported it is.) -Silence 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Heck, even the super-common phrase "Darwinian evolution" is really just shorthand for "the Darwinian theory of evolution"! -Silence 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems to me that Evolution is a fact not a theory at all. 

message: Adding to the confusion, there is not one but two things in biology called "evolution".Obviously, an inspection of a dictionary demonstrates there are many more meanings to the word "evolution". For example, look at evolution (term).  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.Often attributed to Copernicus and called the Copernican theory, the heliocentric theory was at least partly anticipated by several others, including  Aristarchus of Samos, Philolaus and Heraclides Ponticus of Greece, and  Aryabhata in India.
Flowing electrical current can produce a magnet.                                	electromagnetic theoryNormally associated with Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell. A more modern version is called quantum electrodynamics, but Maxwell's version is adequate for most applications.
The earth is getting hotter.                                                    	theory of global warmingIrish physicist John Tyndall was one of the first to predict this effect based on human activity.
A force called gravity pulls on objects.                                        	theory of gravityAristotle's early theory of gravity was replaced by Galileo's, which was made more quantitative by Sir Isaac Newton. The current dominant theory of gravity is Albert Einstein's general relativity theory, although this will eventually be replaced by another theory of gravity with more explanatory power.
Change of gene distribution in a population.                                    	Explanation for this gene distribution change.The current dominant theory that explains these gene distribution changes is called Neo-Darwinism. Previous explanations for this change include  Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Lamarckian theory and William Bateson's Orthogenesis.
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: 
#a change in the distribution of genes in a population.The more formal way to say this is that there is a change in the allele frequencies.The Life Sciences Dictionary defines evolution as "In biological terms: a change in the genetic composition of a population over time." (Life Sciences Dictionary, Biotech Resources and Indiana University, (c) 1995-1998).
#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.The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines evolution as "A theory first proposed in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, according to which the Earth's species have changed and diversified through time under the influence of natural selection." (The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.)
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.--Filll 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two "evolutions"

message: :I suggest we make it clear that "Evolution" itself is different from the "Theory of evolution" and that "Evolution is a fact" pure and simple so as not to confuse anyone.Wikidudeman 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out that you cannot unilaterally change all of science and all of society and all of history by your declaration, even though you might think it is better. As I say, it would be better to have an "evolution" and a "tevolution" but unfortunately, this did not happen.--Filll 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you posted above is too complex and confusing for just an evolution article. We just need to make it clear and differentiate "Evolution" from "Theory of evolutin" and that's all.Wikidudeman 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look too complex for me. I rather like it a lot. We should probably provide a few cited examples of both uses to hammer the point home (like the uses I provided above of "According to evolution..." or "According to general relativity..."), but beyond that I think this will be an exceedingly helpful addition. -Silence 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Filll, your quotations do not support your primary definition. I agree they support the case that fact is "observation" but this differs from "piece of data". If we take the statement "the earth goes around the sun" this is widely regarded as an "observation" but it is clearly NOT necessarily a piece of data from an experiment; it is instead the interpretation of a lot of data. Fact as hypothesis highly corroborated with evidence is perfectly consistent with your first quote in support of your primary definition: an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true'.  The structure of a cell membrane is fact in the same sense and this is not fundamentally different fron the fact "dinosaurs once existed". The only thing consistent in all quotes, both yours and mine is that the truth of a fact is never final (or something to that effect).
Obviously the most common examples of statements for which it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent" are things which are directly observable. But when dictionaries are defining fact in this way they are taking a bit of a shortcut for the layman. All "observations" whether direct or indirect should be regarded as hypotheses. Nothing should be taken from granted. My eyes might be deceiving me. It is absolutely critical to emphasise the hypothetical nature of all facts for the sake the scientific method and proper understanding here. — Axel147 04:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the word "observation"

message: I am afraid this sounds like hair-splitting to me. Let me try to instruct you in science a bit, although I am not optimistic. There are two ways to get data in science: observations, and experiments. These are called empirical data. Evolutionary biology is both an experimental and an observational science. but some sciences like Astrophysics and Atmospheric physics are only observational. Chemistry is experimental. One can do experiments to get data in evolutionary biology. And one can make observations to also get data that pertain to evolution. As Gould says, facts are the world's data. And every single quote I gave you is consistent with what I have maintained all along, and what I just stated. The same is true of the quote from Silence. You have presented no evidence aside from repeated efforts to redefine the words in some way that you feel is favorable to you. This carries essentially no weight, because it is not verifiable. WP is not about truth, it is about verifiability. And I have two publications from the National Academy of Sciences, the premier American scientific organization that  are in complete accord with what I have maintained all along.  All observations/data/experimental results i.e. facts have to be repeatable. That is how science is done. I have always maintained it. And observations/data/experimental results have error bars on them. Which I have always also maintained. That is why I have said science is not about truth or proof or reality; there are error bars on the facts, and the theories are only provisionally true while they make predictions that match the "facts" to be explained. I do not maintain anything different and I never have.-Filll 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have created a box which says  'a "fact" in science is a piece of data'  (despite only having a single Gould reference to support this). Trying to justifiy the widely held view that "evolution is a fact" on this basis seems to me absurd. If "evolution is a piece of data" as you describe surely it is reasonable I demand you give me the experiment, experimeter, date and instrument it was measured with that makes it so? — Axel147 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair splitting

message: The amicus brief at Edwards goes into the issue pretty well, so I've added it to the literature section and cited the Argument in Summary. The main section includes "The Act thus singles out evolutionary theory for more disparaging treatment than other scientific theories that are actually no more robust and reliable. It encourages teachers to erroneously label the proposition that tides are caused by the gravitational attractions of the sun and moon, for example, a "proven scientific fact," while labeling the proposition that species evolve through time a mere "theory." The reason for this scientifically indefensible legislative posture is clear: Whereas the reason for tides is not an issue of significance to adherents of certain religions, evolution is." which might be a useful reference for the gravity bit. .. dave souza, talk 11:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I have a few more of these that will go in the rewrite. This article, which seems to be on a pretty boring narrow subject will be considerably fleshed out.--Filll 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edwards

message: I think a fundamental flaw in this article, and one that has generated much discussion above, is that "fact" doesn't really have a special meaning in science, whereas "theory" does.  Scientists use "fact" the same way as everyone else does, and in my experience they don't use the word all that often.  "Theory," on the other hand, is an important concept in science, and the word has a meaning in science that is very different from its common usage outside science.  Treating "fact" and "theory" on an equal footing in this article is a fundamental flaw (IMHO).  Gnixon 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are totally missing the point of this article, which is that people misconstrue theory as something less than fact.  Evolution is a fact, and it is used in that manner.  I'm a scientist and believe in evolution. Orangemarlin 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are a creationist, nearly every one of your edits has foisted a creationist POV on a whole host of Evolution and Creation articles.  I will revert every POV change I see.  Yes, some of your changes seem to be all right, but I noticed a pattern that you make 10 edits, very small, and hide a POV edit in the hope it won't be caught.  But I'm catching them.  I don't have much else to do this afternoon, so cleaning up your POV edits will be entertaining.  Orangemarlin 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm attempting to have Orangemarlin blocked.  Please ignore his silly comments.  Gnixon 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your attempting to have me blocked.  That will prove one of two things.  Either I get blocked, and that pretty much proves to me what goes on in Wikipedia.  Or second, you'll get laughed out.  Either way, could care less.  Orangemarlin 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental flaw

message: The problem with this whole argument, aside from a heavy pov, is simply that when people object to evolution as being a theory and not a fact they are not referring to any special scientific use of the word fact. They are simply saying that evolution is a model of the natural world, albeit one supported by overwhelming evidence, and not what I can only think to call a Tautology, although that's not quite right. From a point of philosophical skepticism, there is little we can know for sure, evolution included. From this point of view, it seems entirely reasonable to doubt evolution.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by  69.221.235.132  (talk • contribs) 
:This will be more carefully addressed when this article is rewritten; this is planned and the new version is in rough draft form. The difficulty arises in that the people who claim that "evolution is just a theory" do not know what evolution is, do not know what a scientific theory is, do not know what science is, do not know what a fact is, and do not know what a scientific fact is, as well as having very limited literacy in any type of science whatsoever. Of course like any scientific theory, evolution is only a temporary explanation for the scientific facts that are known. So what? In general, philosophers go around stating the obvious and dressing it up with huge words to make themselves seem like deep thinkers. It is really not helpful in this instance, or many others in science to be honest. --Filll 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think the article is well written and clarifies this issue. Dan Gluck 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fact" 

message: Is there anyway to wrap the first fourteen citations into one?-Wafulz 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course. And this will be addressed in the rewrite of this article, which is underway. The rewritten version of the article will also be substantially expanded from its present version, and hopefully more professionally formatted.--Filll 17:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence 

message: A central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed to have a predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution did provide such predictions. Two examples are:
*Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes; Indeed the DNA, with mutation rate of roughly 10-9 per nucleotide per cell division has been found.
*DNA sequences that code for critical RNA or proteins shared by all organisms are highly conserved, while these that code for less critical RNA or proteins shared by all organisms are less conserved; The differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to other methods of taxonomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have seperated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains which are discarded during the formation of fibrin) which is not.
I think it is important to emphasize this point. What I wrote above may serve as a starting point.Dan Gluck 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article missing a section? 

message: There's Music Theory, there's the "Theory of Operation" that can appear in the documentation for an electronic device.  That these are called "theory" doesn't make the matter unreal or hypothetical: there is music, there are oscilloscopes and amplifiers.  With respect to evolution one perhaps could say that the theory of evolution is a body of hypotheses (and that the expanded term for "theory of evolution" is "the body of hypotheses used to describe evolution", but what is typically left out by those who choose that as a point of attack is that the "theory of evolution" is fully consistent with the facts.  Finding that consistency is largely what science is about.  Science starts with the facts, the explanations follow.  (That was the big change in "natural philosophy" that turned it into "science."  Prior to that a philosopher could make up an explanation in his head and assert it and that purely intellectual explanation would last persist for centuries.  One could also make observations about C. P. Snow's "two worlds" here: one "world" still embraces to the exclusion of the other approach full reliance on Aristotelean cogitation: if the intellectual product is intellectually internal consistent that's sufficient.) New facts do appear, sometimes the appearance of a new fact is reflected in some change in the theory.  The development of understanding of genetics was mirrored by changes in the details of the theory of evolution (the increased understanding of genetics provided vital detail to the theory of evolution by indicating how the nature of organs and organisms is determined, by how that is transmitted from parent to child and (eventually) how disruptions in genetic code create changes that are the building blocks of evolution.
The dictionary has more than one definition for "theory."  Creationists pretty much take the wrong definition of theory and use that to attack the theory of evolution.  Considered dispassionately and analytically that's just pointless world play.
There's also the attitude, not strictly confined to creationists, that philosophy trumps science.  That's another aspect of Snow's "two worlds."  Perhaps philosophers have the right to assert that superiority of philosophy over science within philosophy.  They have to recognize that philosophy is a subset of the entire range of human reasoning.  They have no justification for any attempts to force philosophical conclusions into science. --Minasbeede 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other "theories" 

message: The term evolution has evolved.  The definiton from 30 years ago is not the same as today.  Though many of the foundations for evolution (survival of the fittest, natural selection, adaptability, etc) are fact, today's definitions lists these foundations for the defining facts for evolution.  This makes evolution a fact.  But, adding in the statement of changing from one species to another over time makes evolution only a theory.  These foundation blocks are not disputed by anyone, but the changing from one species to another is where all controversy comes from.  Show this in the lab or observe this in nature, and the controversy ends.  A fruit fly changing geneticly is still a fruit fly.  But if an ape started changing to a man millions of years ago, wouldn't these same changes still be repeating themselves year after year.  The transition would continually occur instead of once in a blue moon.  The latter statement of species changing is what many do not believe.  So if evolution is only based on its foundations, what do we call the changing of one species to another?--Codeman1999 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try to learn something about the subject before spewing nonsense on talk pages, which are about improving the article, not this kind of stuff. But look at speciation to answer your question. And by the way almost everything you said is just plain wrong.--Filll 16:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of evolution 

message: This article and the talk page has a misunderstanding of both fact and theory and everything in between. First and foremost is the strange and largely incorrect belief that fact and theory have special meanings in science. They don't. This misunderstanding seems to have been spread by confusing statements in secondary school textbooks, but I'm not sure. A theory is a conclusion based on observable evidence, but is not observable in itself. Contrary to popular belief, when most people say "they have a theory", they really do, in the same sense as as a scientific theory. The only difference is that in science the observable evidence is usually more rigorously put to the test, so one does not actually consider it to be a theory unless all the observable evidence coincides. A hypothesis is a simple if then statement, "if a is true then b is true", used to aid in proving theories. Contrary to most science textbooks, most people do not make hypothesis in every day life. They are simply not very useful. Theories are never really proven, nor are they a fact. Proving requires mathematical proof. Facts are something that cannot be reasonably denied, since they seem self-evident. Only observations are facts, or else something proven by mathematical reasoning. Sometime in the future we may be able to prove evolution mathematically, using observable physical laws, but now that is impossible. Gravity is not a fact, although the observed effects (apple falling) are. Evolution is not a fact, although the observations leading one to believe in evolution certainly are (diversity of life, similarity of life at the basic level, observed mutations, creation of new species over time, etc.). If one takes evolution to mean the observable process of mutation in bacteria (someone brought this up above), then yes, evolution would be a fact. I have never heard such a definition of evolution anywhere. Evolution is a theory meant to explain all the observable evidence. It is the only theory that fits the facts, and it is nothing more and nothing less. On a final note, I would say that evolution does exhibit one characteristic that scientists use to determine how reliable a theory is. Evolution has made predictions about what should happen, which means it is probably an effective model of how the world actually works. Indeed, the effects of evolution are so well observed that my biology 101 book used it as a central theme. Also, for my part I believe evolution to be correct, I simply do not want people using incorrect wording to make it appear to be more than it is: a scientific theory. Over and out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.199.93 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have WP:RS and WP:V sources for your claims?--Filll 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, "theory" and "observation" (= fact) are central themes is philosophy of science and are fundamental for understanding of how science works, so your opening remark is completely incorrect. Besides that, I don't see where you disagree with the article. Regarding the importance of predictions, I agree and so I think so does Filll (see above).Dan Gluck 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, first off the only off hand reference for my claims is Biology 6th Edition by Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece (the most popular college textbook for biology 101), chapter 1, the section on theories in science under the heading The Process of Science. Since you probably don't own this text, I will look for an online resource to show what I am saying. Basically the book says that fact has little to do with science, which is about theories that explain facts and wield broad explanatory power (notably this book does not make the same claim about hypothesis I did above. The book says the main difference between theory and hypotheses is scope, with theories having very large scope, I explained hypotheses as being a theory on unproven facts. That may be my mistake, I'm not sure). This is how I understand the words theory and fact. I have never heard of fact having a special scientific meaning outside of some Wikipedia articles, which led me to believe that some wikipedian made it up. As for where I disagree with this article, that is just that I don't believe evolution to be a fact, or for that matter any other scientific theory. As far as philosophy of science goes, I haven't taken a course on it, but my understanding (which could be wrong) is that science is a method of understanding the world, distinct from religion or philosophy and apart from mathematics (a singular discipline, which has nothing to do with explaining the natural world) and that the main focus of science is on theories that cannot be proven but which make match the given data and have predictive power. I hope that made sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.199.93 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, harsh tone there. But I get the name thing alot. I don't always use secure computers, so I can't always use my name. Maybe I'll login in later and add to what I'm trying to say. Well, I'll check out the NAS publications, but as a rule I don't like "appeal to authority". Anyway the whole thing above is mostly from my own mind, with what I've been taught and learned, and the book reference was just a scramble to satisfy wikipedia verifiability policy. Anyway you may possibly be some biology expert, but until I know otherwise I will assume Campbell knows more about the subject than you, and I at least know some things. Although I can't blame you for disagreeing. We are all entitled to opinion. I'll check back later after I check out what the NAS has to say. Over and out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.199.93 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to apologize. Many Wikipedians seem to sound harsh when they don't mean to, since they aren't very good writers (no offense). I understand Wikipedia policy, and I agree that it is necessary in a collaborative project, although it tends to boggle things down. I do not however agree with the sources on this page. I am not sure which one is supposed to be from the United States National Academy of Sciences, but most of them are not web materials and I cannot verify them. At least three of them are not sources at all, but footnotes. At least one of them also seems to be from Campbell, an earlier edition of the textbook I mentioned, so you must at least trust him a little. The ones that do seem to have web sources all share a common paragraph or two, so either they all use a common source or scarcely concealed plagiarism. At any rate I don't think the NAS can have the final say on something like this. Contrary to what most believe, science isn't mandated by some official board or committee. There are literally thousands if not millions of scientists all over the world, and only as a collective is anything to be gleaned from their work. And for the most part scientists use whatever standards they want. Einstein used the most ridiculous notation for basic math, making his early works almost impossible to read, and at any rate the word "scientist" isn't even well defined. I suppose my real challenge is to find some publication that supports my claim. The other problem I have is that your sources define "evolution as in change" as a fact, not the theory of evolution. I don't even disagree with this, but most people contending evolution don't give a crap whether creatures "change" or "evolve" in the literal sense, but the theory created in the nineteenth century and formulated by Charles Darwin with the mechanism of natural selection. No one reasonably argues against change in organisms; change is the one unchanging constant. Again, I agree with evolutionary theory, but I do not believe that Wikipedia should take a stance against other views. At any rate I lost my password and now have a new username. I hope you like it :). DrolyttheDark 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The quote you have given does not imply that facts (=observations) have no special role in science. It just says that science is not merely a collection of facts (=observations). I don't see how anyone can think that observations are not important in science. If that's what you think, please go to the Science article talk page and start the debate there, since that is the proper place. Regarding OBSERVING evolution in lab as a result of selection of the fittest, see for example the following nice example published in Nature: . If you can bring articles from Nature stating the opposite, we may begin to have a discussion here. Until then, there is no point in continuing this. Dan Gluck 06:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm going to drop this, because nobody seems to understand my point. Of course observations have a special role in science! The only point is that what Wikipedia says on evolution being a fact is misleading, and this is the case in every Wikipedia article dealing with the subject. The theory of evolution is what the word evolution usually means in the context of biology, and that is not observable in a lab. Although you could call the fine tuning of proteins in your example "evolution", that is not really what it is normally called. The fine tuning of proteins is an observation, evolution is a theory. Since you seem to disagree with this, I am not going to bother any more arguments. I will work on improving less controversial aspects of Wikipedia. As for the sources I used, they showed up at the top of the list on google so they can't be particularly terrible. And please don't suggest there is anything about this topic I don't understand. As I've said before, science is not a committee of beaurocrats deciding what is right and wrong. It is a community of over a million people working to increase human understanding, and there is no specific formula for doing so. Different scientists can call different things whatever they want, and most real scientists don't give a crap about special meanings of words that big organizations and committees seem to want people to think are actual science. They simply do their job. I simply want to clarify what people mean when they say evolution is not a fact. It isn't. I don't care what big organization agrees with you, I have actual scientists to back me up. DrolyttheDark 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is probably for the best to drop it, since I do not think you have the consensus of the scientific community behind your definitions and claims. And you can claim whatever you like, but it will not find its way into Wikipedia unless it gets consensus here and you can convince your fellow editors that you have WP:RS and WP:V sources for what you claim. We have many many sources that seem to be contrary to what you say. And I might also note, you are talking to scientists here, who are among your fellow editors. So do not presume that you can pull the wool over our eyes with some fancy footwork. I know what a scientific fact is, I know what a scientific theory is, I know what a scientific law is, I know what a scientific hypothesis is. And I have plenty of sources that demonstrate my understanding is correct. And my understanding is in this and other articles here on Wikipedia, and has been reached by consensus with hundreds of other editors here on Wikipedia. Careful reading of some of your own sources (which are not particularly noteworthy depending on how they appear in a Google search) actually supports my position, and the position of the article. So I think there is some confusion here. I do not have the time to try to ferret out the source of this confusion, however, or to bother arguing it with you.--Filll 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding of fact, theory, and everything in between 

message: I made a few cleanup and clarifying changes to the definitions of fact and Theory.  My changes to the fact section include pointing out that scientific facts require "objective proof", not simply "proof."  My only change to the Theory section includes altering the definition of current theory to say that it has not been falsified and has no equally acceptable alternate theory.
I made these changes before reading this enormous talk page (which should be backed-up).  This may have been an error on my part.  Do you agree/disagree with my changes? Blue Dinosaur Jr 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I've done some minor change. Dan Gluck 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes to ''The Terminology of Science''

message: ::Because of my limited english I don't want to get into this discussion, yet I would like to reference this URL as  I have not been able to find any ¨overwhelming evidence¨ that evolution has to be true in any way? I guess most important here is to mention WHAT evidence there is and WHAT evidence there is against this theory. Because this article states evolution as a fact, yet the evidence is only based on assumptions. Great Slovakia 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seek is in the following article: Evidence of evolution. Dan Gluck 10:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a debating society. Please go to talk.origins if you want a debate. And if your English is not good, please go to a version of Wikipedia in a language in which you feel comfortable.--Filll 18:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist rant 

message: In view of the so-often vandalism that this and other evolution-related article face (for obvious reasons), wouldn't it be better to semi-protect them? Dan Gluck 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protecting the article? 

message: "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature" (which itself should be improved grammatically, perhaps changed to just "in literature") is written in an inapproriate tone.  This section of the article reads as an attempt to CONVINCE readers that evolution is a "fact", not a "theory", when in fact the article sets out explain that evolution is both.  Wikipedia's standards (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style) prohibit such tonality and contradictions.    
The repeated quotations from scientists regarding evolution's scientific status are the main culprits here.  They're taken out of context -- almost all of these quotations involve scientists responding to creationists regarding the "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate.  This article is not focused on that debate.
Also, since the article's position is that evolution is a fact (and a theory), the idea that evolution is a fact should be defined implicitly through references and explained.  No explicit "proof" is necessary.
I've tagged the article for now, if I get a chance I'll post a cleaned up version before an edit goes into effect.  EDIT: I've moved the tag to the "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature" section, as the rest of the article does not seem to suffer from the same problems of tone and style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkpyro8 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are badly confused in several ways. First, you have to learn to sign your name. Second, the expression "in the literature" is the most common one used in academia, not the one you suggested. Third, the scientists quoted are rarely if ever addressing the creationism-evolution controversy. Fourth, this article is an integral part of the articles that discussion the creationism-evolution controversy. Fifth, the quotes in the literature section state that evolution is both a theory and a fact, not just a fact.  Sixth, the ways in which evolution is both a theory and a fact are explained in detail in the article. 
Finally, this article is being rewritten to make this all much more explicit and include many more quotes from more scientists and more detail.--Filll 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Tone in section "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature" 

message: hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
why is this not mentioned in the article? Imbrella 13:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean When?  That sounds like a discussion more appropriate for the Evolution or Punctuated equilibrium page. The mechanism for evolution is totally separate from it's epeistemological and factual basis, and the discussion between it's status as a theory versus a fact.  This page is for the latter only.  To state again, this page is for discussing how evolution is both a fact recognized by scientists, and a theory used by scientists; it's epistemological status, not it's mechanisms.  Try the other pages for your discussion.  It's epistemological status is irrelevant to its mechanisms in my mind.  WLU 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that "evolution is a fact and a theory" creates a lot of confusion. This article explains what it means. It is that simple. --Filll 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Allow me to endorse Filll's pithy clarification.  WLU 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  directly from first source