Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 1

Purported reason for deletion

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.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)

More References

• North Carolina evolution document
• definitions of fact
• Science against evolution website
• Creationist attack against Gould
• natural history magazine special section on evolution

includes quotes about fact and theory

Gould essay might have originally been column in natural history magazine

Introduction: The Illusion of Design

By Richard Dawkins

The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems).

Click here to order the complete November 2005 issue, featuring articles on Darwin & Evolution. Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.

No wonder Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” was moved to chide himself on reading the Origin of Species: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.” And Huxley was the least stupid of men. Charles Darwin discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design.

The breathtaking power and reach of Darwin’s idea—extensively documented in the field, as Jonathan Weiner reports in “Evolution in Action”—is matched by its audacious simplicity. You can write it out in a phrase: nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions for building embryos. Yet, given the opportunities afforded by deep time, this simple little algorithm generates prodigies of complexity, elegance, and diversity of apparent design. True design, the kind we see in a knapped flint, a jet plane, or a personal computer, turns out to be a manifestation of an entity—the human brain—that itself was never designed, but is an evolved product of Darwin’s mill.

Paradoxically, the extreme simplicity of what the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin’s dangerous idea may be its greatest barrier to acceptance. People have a hard time believing that so simple a mechanism could deliver such powerful results.

The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed. To pursue my paradox, there is a sense in which the skepticism that often greets Darwin’s idea is a measure of its greatness. Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. Paraphrasing the twentieth-century population geneticist Ronald A. Fisher, natural selection is a mechanism for generating improbability on an enormous scale. Improbable is pretty much a synonym for unbelievable. Any theory that explains the highly improbable is asking to be disbelieved by those who don’t understand it.

Yet the highly improbable does exist in the real world, and it must be explained. Adaptive improbability—complexity—is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve and that natural selection, uniquely as far as science knows, does solve. In truth, it is intelligent design that is the biggest victim of the argument from improbability. Any entity capable of deliberately designing a living creature, to say nothing of a universe, would have to be hugely complex in its own right.

If, as the maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle mistakenly thought, the spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747, then a divine designer is the ultimate Boeing 747. The designer’s spontaneous origin ex nihilo would have to be even more improbable than the most complex of his alleged creations. Unless, of course, he relied on natural selection to do his work for him! And in that case, one might pardonably wonder (though this is not the place to pursue the question), does he need to exist at all?

The achievement of nonrandom natural selection is to tame chance. By smearing out the luck, breaking down the improbability into a large number of small steps—each one somewhat improbable but not ridiculously so—natural selection ratchets up the improbability. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

As the generations unfold, ratcheting takes the cumulative improbability up to levels that—in the absence of the ratcheting—would exceed all sensible credence.

Many people don’t understand such nonrandom cumulative ratcheting. They think natural selection is a theory of chance, so no wonder they don’t believe it! The battle that we biologists face, in our struggle to convince the public and their elected representatives that evolution is a fact, amounts to the battle to convey to them the power of Darwin’s ratchet—the blind watchmaker—to propel lineages up the gentle slopes of Mount Improbable.

The misapplied argument from improbability is not the only one deployed by creationists. They are quite fond of gaps, both literal gaps in the fossil record and gaps in their understanding of what Darwinism is all about. In both cases the (lack of) logic in the argument is the same. They allege a gap or deficiency in the Darwinian account. Then, without even inquiring whether intelligent design suffers from the same deficiency, they award victory to the rival “theory” by default. Such reasoning is no way to do science. But science is precisely not what creation “scientists,” despite the ambitions of their intelligent-design bullyboys, are doing.

In the case of fossils, as Donald R. Prothero documents in “The Fossils Say Yes” [see the print issue], today’s biologists are more fortunate than Darwin was in having access to beautiful series of transitional stages: almost cinematic records of evolutionary changes in action. Not all transitions are so attested, of course—hence the vaunted gaps. Some small animals just don’t fossilize; their phyla are known only from modern specimens: their history is one big gap. The equivalent gaps for any creationist or intelligent-design theory would be the absence of a cinematic record of God’s every move on the morning that he created, for example, the bacterial flagellar motor. Not only is there no such divine videotape: there is a complete absence of evidence of any kind for intelligent design.

Absence of evidence for is not positive evidence against, of course. Positive evidence against evolution could easily be found—if it exists. Fisher’s contemporary and rival J.B.S. Haldane was asked by a Popperian zealot what would falsify evolution. Haldane quipped, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” No such fossil has ever been found, of course, despite numerous searches for anachronistic species.

There are other barriers to accepting the truth of Darwinism. Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth. Even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

In spite of the success and admiration that he earned, and despite his large and loving family, Darwin’s life was not an especially happy one. Troubled about genetic deterioration in general and the possible effects of inbreeding closer to home, as James Moore documents in “Good Breeding” [see print issue], and tormented by illness and bereavement, as Richard Milner’s interview with the psychiatrist Ralph Colp Jr. shows in “Darwin’s Shrink,” Darwin’s achievements seem all the more. He even found the time to excel as an experimenter, particularly with plants. David Kohn’s and Sheila Ann Dean’s essays (“The Miraculous Season” and “Bee Lines and Worm Burrows” [see print issue]) lead me to think that, even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter, albeit an experimenter with the style of a gentlemanly amateur, which might not find favor with modern journal referees.

As for his major theoretical achievements, of course, the details of our understanding have moved on since Darwin’s time. That was particularly the case during the synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian digital genetics. And beyond the synthesis, as Douglas J. Futuyma explains in “On Darwin’s Shoulders,” [see print issue] and Sean B. Carroll details further for the exciting new field of “evo-devo” in “The Origins of Form,” Darwinism proves to be a flourishing population of theories, itself undergoing rapid evolutionary change.

In any developing science there are disagreements. But scientists—and here is what separates real scientists from the pseudoscientists of the school of intelligent design—always know what evidence it would take to change their minds. One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned explicator of Darwinian evolution, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, where he was educated. Dawkins’s popular books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton, 1986), Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton, 1996), and most recently, The Ancestor’s Tale (Houghton Mifflin, 2004), which retells the saga of evolution in a Chaucerian mode.

Outline

• Description/introduction to controversy
• definition of evolution
• Definitions of fact
• Definitions of theory
• definitions of truth
• Short statements about fact and theory in evolution
• history of argument
• scientific facts supporting evolution
• scientific facts supporting gravity?

• reasons to state that evolution is a fact
• reasons to state that gravity is a fact?

Evolution not a scientific fact?

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??

1. FACT - An observation or a piece of data. A measurement or some evidence or the result of an experiment.
2. 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)

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)

Evolution not a piece of data from an experiment

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)

(See discussion at creation controversy page Creationism vs. Evolution: Theory vs. Fact)

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)

I also am troubled by the way this is worded. In comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution, you have called them facts and theories as if they were interchangeable. Not so. The observable, gravity, is a fact. What mathmatics and concepts we have devised to explain gravity comprise the "theory of gravity". That they are both called gravity adds to the confusion of calling them both a theory and a fact, which is fairly clearly explained as written. However, this same distinction exists for evolution and that is not clear in the article. Evolution as a theory of how life grew and diversified from less advanced organisms is a theory that most biologists agree best describes the our available observable facts. However, the fact of "evolution" described here is really an observation of "adaptation" and/or "variation" and/or "heredity" and/or many of the other contributing facts to the theory of evolution, not the same as the theory of evolution. Again, they are two separate things: one is fact and one is theory. To not make this distinction clear is dangerous and downright misleading.

I am entirely in agreement that there is no illegitimacy in theories. I am a scientist myself (in the world of physics) and my father is a biologist. But you cannot legitimize this for laymen by trying to convince them a theory is a fact. It is not. I disagree with the assertion made in the evolution discussion that scientific theory equates with a layman's fact. It doesn't and I personally believe arguments made to that effect reflect poorly on science and contribute to the apparently growing disconnect between the general public and science. Evolution is a theory based on a body of facts. For those who understand science, that will be enough. For those who are offended because it conflicts with faith, no amount of alternative discussion or word-smithing will change their opinions. It is one of the distinctions between science and faith, the reliance on facts. In science, new facts can disprove a theory, often summarily, because it is dependent on facts. In faith, facts are not necessary. They both have their places but it is one reason they are so often at odds. Muffinsmomusa 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr 1/2/07

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)

I agree that your task is made more difficult by the ambiguity of the quotes, but I wonder (speculation as opposed to theory or fact) if the current public controversy has influenced scientists to adopt ambiguous language in self-defense. When Galileo first proposed concepts at odds with the current understanding of physics "fact", he faced incredible opposition. Now, it is biology that so often faces off with those who have unassailable beliefs.

You don't have to argue that many laymen (not all) equate "fact" with something that appears to be true. whether based on the preponderance of data or, sometimes, on extremely flimsy evidence. I remember a lesson from college (while I was getting a degree in Engineering Physics). I went to my quantum physics instructor, who was quite knowledgeable and clearly devoted to the subject, and told him I wasn't convinced that objects with mass couldn't go faster than the speed of light. I asked him why it was taught as established. He explained that we had never seen anything go faster than the speed of light. I pointed out that we wouldn't likely see something moving faster than the speed of light, which he laughed at and said, "True enough. We can only base our understanding on the facts we know. That doesn't discount facts we may yet find that may negate our understanding. You could be right." Then, I moved to an English class where we were discussing a Longfellow poem, where the instructor repeatedly corrected and negated everyone on their impressions (as if one impression was "correct" or even better than another). That's where I came to realize something I have seen happen again and again: the less fact backing someone's view, the more vehement he or she is defending it.

Biology is challenging under the best of circumstances. In "simple" physics experiments, I can expect to repeat it over and over and get the same results. With biology, where even the simplest creatures are hopelessly complex, it gets much more interesting, with results that can change from event to event just because of the differences in living things. That doesn't mean there aren't verifiable facts in biology, just that if Newtonian physics were black and white, quantum physics were gray, biology would be a maelstrom of color. Because many religious faiths are at odds with what we understand on biology and paleantology, they take a pounding from many outside science. I can understand the temptation to use the same definition of "fact" so common outside the world of science.

However, I'm very leery of following down the path were we pick an arbitrary amount of factual support for a theory and say "that's enough" to call the theory fact. That's a slippery slope and leads to the most dangerous thing a scientist can have: a closed mind. A theory isn't a bad thing; it's a jumping off point to gather more data and understand the situation even better (like bacteria and resistance to antibiotics), or develop something that might work better (like improved crops). A theory means, though, that a new set of facts could come along and take us on a different path, even one that takes us in a different direction with the right facts. Who says we know so much about biology in this wide universe that we can conclusively say we understand evolution well enough to call it fact? I'm afraid I'm against scientists slipping into complacency even in self-defense. In my opinion, a scientist's mind should be like your favorite convenience store: always open.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong, or anything else for that matter. But I won't favor another candidate over evolution unless it can produce a similar caliber of factual support. On the other hand, neither will I confuse it with fact until there is no more to be learned in biology. I figure that's a safe posture for a bit longer. Muffinsmomusa 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr 1/2/07

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)

Good luck. This reminds me of a story my father told me when he was taking a botany class (his first degree is in botany). The first day of class, rather than describe in general terms the rest of the class, a professor described a great deal of fact for two and half hours, forcing everyone to scribble furiously. When he was finished, he smiled and said: "That's what we know about botany. The rest...is conjecture." That kind of thinking is what I like about science. And it's why I always take absolute convictions in biology with a grain of salt. Enjoyed talking with you.Stephanie Barr 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr

I think you should differentiate between the mechanism of evolution and the historical evolution. On the one hand not only the basic mechanisms of evolution (variation by mutation, natural selection...), but also the whole mechanism of evolution can be observed. Not nearly as easily as gravity, but it can be observed. (Maybe here the example of antibiotic resistance would be a better, more verifiable example than the fruit flies) Still the mechanism of evolution is only a theory explaining observations which were intuitively called 'evolution'. Those observations are facts (here you got evolution as a fact). The explanation by the mechanisms of evolution is not. It is a theory by definition. On the other hand the theory of historical evolution explaining the variety of species can't be observed, because it is supposed to have happened in the past. You can only observe Fossils and the current flora and fauna. Then you can try to explain how all this came into being; for example by assuming a random abiogenesis of a single cell and then applying the mechanism of evolution. This random abiogenesis and the following evolution over millions of years is what a layman thinks of as 'evolution'. This certainly is 'only' a theory. It isn't and never will be a fact. It is very importent to clearly differentiate these things. Strictly speaking even the assumption that everything always falls downwards cannot be considered a fact. How can you know that there will never be a stone being observed falling upwards?? This may seem a bit like I'm splitting hairs, but if you don't strictly apply well defined terms of 'fact' and 'theory' you will end where we where a few centuries ago considering it a fact that we live on a flat earth. Don't ever hesitate to present things very differentiated! Maybe referencing the critical rationalism by Karl Popper would be a good idea, too. Madroach 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Misunderstandings about evolution

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)

Microevolution versus macroevolution

I just wanted to point out that the differentiation between microevolution and macroevolution would make this a lot clearer and unbiased. Fruit fly populations morphology is indeed something we can see like gravity, and so I can understand the usage of it as fact, though that is still a version of fact that goes against some definitions of it (I see gravity being used as the descriptive term given to what is actually seen. The fact is objects attract towards other objects. It is true that we call that gravity, but any name could in theory be given to such an observation. It's really best to keep fact to observational data. When a meteorological observer see rain outside, he says rain is falling. The use of the term gravity is both a symbolic name given to replace what we see... and also a separate theory that actually describes what we are seeing (and, as any theory, is a possible explanation until proven elsewise) (actually I believe gravity is actually under the category of law because it is directly mathematically obtainable from the basic physical laws, though I may be incorrect in that belief)) ... the point I'm trying to make, though, is that microevolution, as given in the fruit fly example is indeed readily observable, and all arguments about symbolic naming versus descriptive theory aside, is indeed fact as you put it. Macroevolution isn't observable to our eyes and is thus a theory. To my knowledge no experiments can be concocted that independently show macroevolution to be valid, so I don't see how that can be called fact. ... I'm sure you will not like my admittedly biased viewpoint as a Christian (and scientist), but feel the broad use of the term is unfair. I'm not going to go defacing webpages to put forth my views, just make the complaints known here so that others hopefully discuss them. Thanks. JeopardyTempest 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"I just wanted to point out that the differentiation between microevolution and macroevolution would make this a lot clearer and unbiased." - There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution under modern evolutionary theory. Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolutions; it's microevolution on a larger scale.

"(I see gravity being used as the descriptive term given to what is actually seen. The fact is objects attract towards other objects." - The fact is that the genetic composition of populations changes over successive generations. Just as gravity is observed in the form of objects falling, evolution is observed in the form of populations genetically changing over time. Just as gravity is also a theory explaining the former observations, evolution is also a theory explaining the latter.

"When a meteorological observer see rain outside, he says rain is falling." - And when a biologist sees bacteria developing antibiotic immunity, he says that bacteria are evolving. What's the difference?

"(actually I believe gravity is actually under the category of law because it is directly mathematically obtainable from the basic physical laws, though I may be incorrect in that belief)" - You are indeed incorrect. It is impossible to mathematically demonstrate gravity; gravity is solely derived from our observations, and our explanations thereof. Scientific laws have nothing to do with mathematical laws or axioms; they're basically just a subclass of simple, general theories.

"Macroevolution isn't observable to our eyes and is thus a theory." - Thus, by your logic: Microgravitation, in the form of an apple falling from a tree, is a fact. Macrogravitation, in the form of planets and stars and galaxies gravitationally attracting each other, is a theory. :)

I notice that you've failed, however, to define "macroevolution"; what, exactly, is macroevolution, or microevolution? Where do you draw the line between them? Is the development of completely novel traits macroevolution? Is speciation macroevolution? I ask because most people who talk about macroevolution and microevolution are guilty of "moving the goalposts"; they define macroevolution as "whatever parts of evolution there isn't direct evidence for", thus making it impossible to meet their absurd and arbitrary standards for evidence. How do you distinguish microevolutionary processes from macroevolutionary processes? Most biologists consider them to be one and the same.

"To my knowledge no experiments can be concocted that independently show macroevolution to be valid," - If that's true, then no experiment can be concocted that independently shows that macrogravitation is valid. It depends on how you define "experiment". Much of science is based on observations, not just on experiments. When you look outside and see that it's raining, do you know that it's raining because you did an experiment? Of course not. Whether or not an "experiment" can demonstrate macroevolution is irrelevant, because the fact of macroevolution has been observed so many times: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"I'm sure you will not like my admittedly biased viewpoint as a Christian (and scientist)," - Most people who are Christians and scientists don't reject macroevolution, so don't generalize your views onto an entire religious (and professional) group.

"I'm not going to go defacing webpages to put forth my views, just make the complaints known here so that others hopefully discuss them." - I appreciate your civility and candor in explaining your views. Hopefully I have satisfactorily cleared up the idea that macroevolution (or macrogravitation) lacks evidence. -Silence 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to respond but Silence said a lot of what I was going to say. I would however direct you to the quote by Feynman at the bottom of the page he gave a link to. The fact is, the details of gravity are easily much stranger and harder to believe than any detail of evolution. Evolution is really pretty simple. Gravity is far far more mysterious than evolution. We have no clue what it is really. There is a bizarre type of antigravity that works. There are places in the universe, due to excessive gravity, that basically are holes in the universe; all our laws of physics break down there. Gravity bends light; we have known this for almost 80 years, even though light has no mass. Gravity can act like a strange lens so there are multiple images of some stars, and the light from all of these images does not get to earth at the same time. Gravity is very difficult to reconcile with quantum mechanics, but the other 3 forces readily accommodate quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, we expect gravity to be broken into small bites, and be transmitted by particles that are exchanged between bodies. These particles carry spins but have never been observed. We expect to see diffraction and refraction and all kinds of similar effects in gravity waves, which are apparently draining energy from some cosmic bodies. The closer you look at gravity, the stranger and less intuitive it appears. It is a very very very strange thing. Another big mystery is the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses. Gravity is also closely related to thermodynamics, and black holes can evaporate by giving off heat. It is just staggering. So do not be too sure that gravity is no big deal and you understand it well. I promise you, you do not understand gravity at all. So if you feel comfortable with gravity and uncomfortable with evolution, I contend to you that your comfort is mis-placed. Evolution is no big deal, even with a little bit of weirdness because of genetics. Gravity is far, far harder to believe. I will also point out that the Big Bang is basically all about gravity, and so in some strange ways gravity is a powerful creative force, capable of creating time and space itself. So you want to feel something threatens your faith? Don't choose evolution. Choose gravity. --Filll 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From a theological viewpoint there's a connection between gravity and evolution which I found slightly surprising when I came across it here: 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. He found his theory at the end of September 1838, so the comparison predates the idea of natural selection. I've not tried searching, but the same cite may be available at DarwinOnline. .. dave souza, talk 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think the rebutter (Silence) for JeopardyTempest missed the point. I think the "macroevolution" we have here is the extrapolation from the relatively small instant of time's worth of living data available (compared to the millions of years before) that all life as we know it evolved from simple single-celled organisms. Simple adaptation traceable in the past century is readily demonstrable and supports this theory, and I use the term deliberately. You would not get an argument from me that fossil records are in support of this theory. But fossil records provide only some unknown portion of the living records from each time period and it's alot of time. There is no way to conclusively prove that what we've found encompasses all the available data or that some of the data we haven't found doesn't disprove the theory (and only one fact is technically necessary, depending on it's definitiveness). We can't even say with assurity that we know all forms of life and, if there was one we aren't familiar with, we'd know it when we saw it. And we haven't even explored for life on different planets, yet--not effectively.

I am more the physicist type, but I've always had a fascination for genetics and I remember the many lessons my father, the plant physiologist, taught me. Key to that is the clear understanding that there is nothing simple about life (just ask anyone in medicine). From my own efforts, I took an interest and career in science. And key to my understanding of science was that there was no magic number of small localized facts that would allow a huge extrapolation of those facts to miraculously become "fact" themselves. I find it hard to believe that any respectable biologist would believe that they know the bulk of all the knowledge there is to know in biology. And wouldn't you have to believe you know most if not all there is before you could credit your extrapolation with "law"?

I agree that JeopardyTempest's note was courteous. I found Silence's tone, however, condescending/patronizing, inappropriate for anyone who claims to be on the side of science. Since when does science object to being questioned? Object to demanding the proof before claiming fact? Does science increase its claims to legitimacy if we insist on using terms that are not normally accepted in science, like calling well-demonstrated theories "fact" because "regular people" call even speculation fact? Do we do science justice in closing our hearts to the questions of the dissentor because we are weary with justifying the facts we do have to those who are less educated? I don't see how anyone learns if their questions are treated with scorn. Some will never hear, because faith can be used to permanently seal the mind from truth. I'd be grieved if scientists "fought back" against ignorance by closing their own minds.Stephanie Barr 06:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr

Well, that's a tad unfair. I apologize if I was too brusque and offended anyone, but you are accusing me of doing things which I did not do: nowhere in my post did I say that evolution is a "fact", nowhere in my post did I say that evolution is a "law", nowhere did I say that you can't question science, and nowhere in my post did I say that any biologist "knows the bulk of all the knowledge there is to know in biology". Nor do I believe that I treated JeopardyTempest "with scorn"; just because I made a few jokes doesn't mean I was being spiteful or hateful. So most of your complaints don't really seem to apply very well to what I actually said. You seem to be venting a general complaint you have about people who are too closed-minded in answering questions about science, and I'd agree with you that many people are too quick to attack people asking honest questions; but your complaint doesn't apply very well here, as I never insulted or dismissed any of Jeopardy's questions, and even if some of my answers were too flippant (for which I apologize), they were still all relevant and based on the considered analysis of what Jeopardy said, clearly not on any sort of knee-jerk "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION SCIENCE?!!" reaction.

You are correct, of course, in pointing out that our data is "relatively small"—relative to all the potential information out there, we are quite ignorant. Which is why all science is provisional and revisable; even the most set-in-stone principles, like the Law of Gravity, may be revised again and again in the future as our body of observations grows. Exceptions can always arise, in any scientific field. There is no way to "conclusively prove" any theory (or even any "fact") in any scientific field with certainty, because empirical research can never attain strict "proof", or certainty. There is nothing unusual about biology in either of these respects; I will not dispute that theories in physics may have more solid grounding than theories in biology, but that doesn't change the fact that both biology and physics rely on "relatively small" data, nor that both biology and physics lack "conclusive proof" of any of their claims. It is equally possible that gravity will be overturned in the future as it is that evolution will be overturned in the future; in fact, some would argue that it's more likely by an order of magnitude for gravity to be overturned than evolution, though that's not necessarily reflective of the state of most theories in physics or biology.

Just as "macroevolution" (evolution over long spans of time) is based on extrapolation from observed microevolution, and on signs of macroevolution (fossils, etc.), "macrogravitation" (gravity over long spans of space) is based on extrapolation from observed microgravitation and signs of macrogravitation. Both are based on the assumption that our observations are essentially consistent with the way the universe at large works, despite the limitations in our data; as such, both are less sure and certain than facts (though they are still extraordinarily plausible, based on the evidence thus far). But as long as we have no grounds to doubt either of these extrapolations, and as long as all the evidence continues to suggest that the formation of galaxies operates according to gravity, or the formation of genera operates according to evolution, there is no more reason to doubt either of these theories than there is to doubt your direct observations.

The fact that we haven't found extraterrestrial life has no implications for current evolutionary theory. To argue that we should be skeptical or cautious regarding evolution because there are presumably lifeforms that we've never observed is as unwarranted as arguing that we should be skeptical or cautious regarding gravity because there are planets and stars we've never observed. If other organisms were discovered who didn't speciate, that wouldn't mean that they weren't being influenced by all the evolutionary mechanisms; and even if they weren't, that would mean nothing more than that evolution doesn't apply to them (requiring an addendum to the theory), not that evolution as applied to life on Earth is false or lacking. You can always point to a lack of data to try to stir up doubt on a topic, for theories like the Big Bang much more so than theories like evolution; but the limitations in our knowledge is reason for keeping an open mind to new evidence, not reason for speculating that future evidence is at all likely to overthrow something like evolution, or gravity. To do so gives the misleading impression that such an occurrence is plausible, as opposed to merely possible. (And almost anything is possible.)

"And wouldn't you have to believe you know most if not all there is before you could credit your extrapolation with "law"?" - Clearly not. Newton didn't claim to "know most if not all" before crediting an extrapolation from observed events with the name of "law". And, sure enough, some of his "laws" turned out to be not entirely correct. The limitations in our observations are reason to make even our foundational laws and theories provisional and revisable; they are not, in themselves, reason for strongly doubting the validity of well-supported, uncontradicted scientific laws or theories, which may not be perfect, but are certainly the best we've got.

"Object to demanding the proof before claiming fact? " - How are you defining "proof"? By its strict definition, "proof" is impossible in science, because empirical research, practically by definition, lacks certainty. If by "proof" you simply mean "compelling evidence", then I provided a website with plenty of evidence to back up what I said. -Silence 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was too quick to come to judgement on the tone of your addition, Silence, I apologize. Day in and day out, I work with engineers and experts who are driven by the requirements of the program we support to provide numbers and act on them. Unfortunately, many either do not appreciate or have lost sight of the uncertainties that feed the numbers they use, that calculations are often extrapolations from what we can observe/test and are, therefore, subject to errors that may not be quantifiable. And even those calculations are based on assumptions, whose truth is of varying validity (often "fact" as so often defined by the layman: speculation that seems to fit). Since I am involved in safety, I'm often chilled to the bone. I have seen experts in a field discard THE ONLY DATA THEY HAD in a particular data range because it didn't match their model and must therefore be wrong. Looking back over this, that clearly makes me oversensitive and, as I took it out on you, I apologize. I should also make clear that I was concerned with an attitude I have frequently seen among "scientists," not necessarily your comments.

Let me also be clear: I am an advocate of the theory of evolution. No one has to convince me that it is the best explanation currently available for the data to hand. The point you made about Newton declaring his laws, that many have had to be adjusted, etc, to me, just demonstrates my point about moving to blithely from the world of theory into "fact". As for the extra-terrestrial biology, you are correct...if the life is different or even if it evolves as it does here. What might be a challenge to the "macroevolution" would be if we could trace our life to some of theirs... Speculation, of course, but it's one of the reasons I insist on an open mind.

Theory is not a bad word, or a bad thing. It is what makes science what it is, ever and always a pursuit of the knowledge we don't yet have. The problem isn't that evolution is a theory; it's that many of the counters to it don't qualify under the term "theory" as they can be easily "disproved" with available data. (Disproving is always easier than proving, in science). I am sensitive, too, to the (in my opinion) silly pressures by many to threaten to remove this aspect of science (evolution) from public school or force it to go side by side with those concepts that may not be dependent on fact. That, in my opinion, isn't science; that's theology. By all means, have a class on that, but don't label it "science". I suppose that if we looked at science texts from 100 years ago, much of that science would have been demonstrated inaccurate or skewed, but, if we hadn't had it, we wouldn't be where we are today. I should bear in mind that biologists touting evolution are being threatened in the public schools, where no one is yet refusing to teach gravity, or Newtonian physics.

I am sympathetic. I do understand frustration when data is countered with dogma. Heck, I deal with that (in an entirely different forum) every day. I just think, as scientists, we must take the high road: hold to the truth, not let our own language be corrupted by frustrations and those who just don't understand the process of science. If we don't, we can become susceptible to the same kind of expertitis I frequently see, that our minds close to possibilities, some of which may not yet have been thought of. I wouldn't want to see that happen, else, several generations from now, it might be the scientists protesting new discoveries with dogma. Think that's never happened? Ask Galileo. Stephanie Barr 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr

My impression is that the creationists have so muddied the waters on these issues that the average person does not really understand what is known and unknown. Creationists make their own definitions for things, including "abiogenesis" in with evolution or "stellar evolution" in with natural selection, or the Big Bang in with mutation. That is where Wikipedia can play a valuable role. I say over and over in this article and elsewhere:

• there is no proof in science; if you want proof, go to mathematics or logic (and even then it is proof given the axioms assumed)
• theories and facts in science are not certain or true or real in the vernacular sense of certain, true or real; scientific facts have error bars and are interpreted in the light of theories, which are themselves provisional and temporary in nature

It is quite possible that evolution will be altered in the future; in fact, I would expect it. It already has many bells and whistles that Darwin did not anticipate. And I would agree with silence, that knowing a bit about gravity and a bit about evolution, that gravity is far more certain to endure substantial revision in the future than evolution is. Gravity is very mysterious, and we already have multiple indications that there is something far far more interesting going on than just an inverse square law, or a bending of space-time. Gravity probably has both particle and wave-like characters as well, and is associated with literal "tears" in the fabric of our universe where all laws of physics that we know break down. Gravity is also associated with the creation of time and space itself, and our own observations of apples falling appears to be contradicted when we turn our observations skyward. And this does not include the very mysterious equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. Gravity is a very very deep mystery. This story is not over by far. I also understand the discomfort with trying to infer things in the past from fossils, but that is much more substantial evidence than we have for about 99% of our scientific theories. Humans have very limited resources at our disposal, and it is sort of incredible that we are able to do much of any value at all, given our limitations.--Filll 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad we have come to an understanding. Like most disagreements, I think ours originated as a misunderstanding between two people who largely agree with each other. I, too, object to people who treat science too dogmatically—not least because it leads to misunderstandings of the very nature of science among laypeople, e.g., the idea that science involves absolute "proof" or certainty. Presenting science and unquestionable, infallible Truth undermines, rather than strengthens, the cause of science. Once we realize that science is probabilistic, it becomes much easier to see why the most plausible theories, not the most "certain" ones, are the ones we can be (relatively) confident in.
• "What might be a challenge to the "macroevolution" would be if we could trace our life to some of theirs..." - I don't think that would be a challenge to "macroevolution", since that would deal with the origin of life, not its long-term development. Rather, that would be a challenge to current leading models of abiogenesis (though presumably the extraterrestrial life itself would have to have abiogenetically developed at some point, so that wouldn't erase the issue so much as move it back a step). But there isn't any evidence for that at this point, so it remains interesting speculation.
• My priorities might be slightly different from yours (e.g., I'm a lot less concerned about the possibility of future scientific dogmatism than I am about the very real and present danger of science being subverted by religious dogma, at least in the United States), but I agree with just about all of your points. Very well-said. -Silence 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said everyone. Just as a wee aside to all this harmony, it's a common Creationist claim that "scientism" involves dogmatic faith in Darwin – I'm working my way through The Origin of Species with the aid of Leakey's commentary to the illustrated abridged edition of 1979, and it's striking how much Darwin is now considered to have got wrong: for example, giving credibility to changed habits producing an inheritable effect, variation being caused by domestication and of course panspermia pangenesis. As you've indicated, religious dogma is inherently a matter of untestable certainty, a very different mindset from science which requires perpetual doubt and uncertainty – though there are some things we can be pretty sure about! .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC) oops, memory lapse . dave souza, talk 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What Darwin got right: I dare say, if you looked at Newton's Principia and other publications and writings, you would have the same impression. A large fraction of Newton's life's work is on the ash heap. The material of Newton's that we remember as "correct" is only approximately correct. Almost everything he did in optics and mechanics and gravitation has been superceded. His work in calculus as well is really just of historic interest, in almost every aspect because he did not use modern methods and the modern standards of proof. About the only thing that remains unchanged is a bit of notation, and even that is often replaced by someone else's. The value was, in both Newton's and Darwin's cases, that they pushed the science in a new direction. Even if some of their contributions were foreshadowed by others, the precursors did not have the same effect on scientific thought as Newton and Darwin.--Filll 18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. .. dave souza, talk 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Plumbing is a science and Cleaning Toilets is a religion

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)

Zen and the art of plumbing :) .... dave souza, talk 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly :) --Filll 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Evolution is a fact not a theory at all.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I will agree that the scientists have made some mistakes in their naming conventions. It would be better if "evolution" was the fact, and "tevolution" was the theory. Nevertheless, that is not the situation that exists in the real world. And we are an encyclopedia, and so we describe the situation as it exists, not as how we would like it to be.--Filll 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a draft section of the rewrite:

Scientists respond

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."
• 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..."
• Eugenie Scott: "evolution is a theory...Evolution is 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..."

The resulting confusion

Unfortunately, none of these quotes do much to clarify the situation. Instead, they sound like "doubletalk", leading creationists to charge scientists with being deceitful, since creationists claim evolution is false or not "proved".

For example, the evangelical and creationist organization "All About GOD Ministries" 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.

Two "evolutions"

Adding to the confusion, there is not one but two things in biology called "evolution". 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.
Flowing electrical current can produce a magnet.	electromagnetic theory
The earth is getting hotter.	theory of global warming
A force called gravity pulls on objects.	theory of gravity
Change of gene distribution in a population.	Explanation for this gene distribution change.
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.
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.

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)

Response

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)

Huh? I am confused. Where is this confusion going to arise in the new rewrite?--Filll 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Well if you want simple, it is described simply (or at least used to be, before recent edit wars) in the evolution and on Creation-evolution controversy articles. Unfortunately, this is not a simple issue, and this article is about the complication. That is the topic of this article. So we have to explore the issue carefully in this article. That is the entire point.--Filll 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Article uses incorrect definition of "scientific fact"

I realise I have made this before but it is so fundamental to this article it has to be repeated. The definition of scientific fact used here as 'an observation or piece of data' is simply not correct. I can't see how the article can proceed without getting this right. The correct definition from eminent scientists is as follows...

• "A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. 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." Douglas Futyuma

• "Fact does not mean 'absolute certainty'...In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold assent.' " Stephen J Gould

• "It is strictly only a theory that the earth goes around the sun. It is a theory but it's a theory supported by all the evidence. A fact is a theory that is supported by all the evidence." Richard Dawkins

• "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." Steven D. Schafersman [2]

— Axel147 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This will be addressed in the rewrite of this article, which is proceeding slowly. I will deal with both scientific meanings of the word fact. In the meantime, take a look at:

Fact in science

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.'"

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

• 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)"

• 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."

• 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.

• 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."

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.

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.'"

Notes

--Filll 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example of how fact is defined in scientific contexts, from Eugenie Scott's excellent book on the creation-evolution controversy:

"How do you think scientists would rank the terms fact, hypothesis, law, and theory? How would you list these four from most important to least? Most people list facts on top, as the most important, followed by laws, then theories, with hypotheses being least important, at the bottom: 1. Facts; 2. Laws; 3. Theories; 4. Hypotheses.

"You may be surprised that scientists rearrange this list, as follows: 1. Theories; 2. Laws; 3. Hypotheses; 4. Facts.

"Why is there this difference? Clearly, scientists must have different definitions of these terms compared to how we use them 'on the street.' Let's start with facts.

"If someone said to you, 'List five scientific facts,' you could probably do so with little difficulty. Living things are composed of cells. Gravity causes things to fall. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second. Continents move across the surface of the Earth. Earth revolves around the sun. And so on. Scientific facts, most people think, are claims that are rock solid, about which scientists will never change their minds. Most people think that facts are just about the most important part of science, and that the job of the scientist is to collect more and more facts.

"Actually, facts are useful and important, but they are far from being the most important elements of scientific explanation. In science, facts are confirmed observations. After the same result is obtained after numerous observations, scientists will accept something as a fact and no longer continue to test it. ...

"... Scientific 'facts' (confirmed observations) have been shown not to be true. For a decade or so back in the 1950s, it was thought that humans had 22 chromosome pairs, but better cell staining techniques revealed that we actually have 23 pairs. A fact has changed, in this case with more accurate means of measurement. At one point, we had confirmed observations of 22 chromosome pairs, but now have more confirmations of 23 pairs, so we accept the latter—although at different times both were considered 'facts.'

"So facts are important but not immutable; they can change. An observation, though, doesn't tell you very much about how something works. It's a first step toward knowledge, but by itself it doesn't get you very far, which is why scientists put it at the bottom of the hierarchy of explanation."

-Silence 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the word "observation"

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)

Hair splitting

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)

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)

Good heavens. Look at the references. Look at talkorigins. Look at evidence of evolution--Filll 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact Quiz

Forgive me Wikipedia for presenting this, but this has a serious purpose. I think Filll missed my last point (of course I see the evidence for evolution). Filll, so we know where we stand please could say True or False using your primary definition of "fact"....:

1.The claim "evolution is a fact" implies that evolution is almost certainly true.

There are two meanings to fact in science. One is, a theory that is very well established. Also, a fact is a piece of scientific data from an experiment or observation. In both senses of the word "fact" as it is used in science, evolution is a fact. --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also two meanings of evolution. When evolution means "the theory of evolution" (modern evolutionary synthesis), it is not a fact under the primary definition ("a verified observation"), but is a fact under the secondary definition ("any proposition that is extremely likely to be true; a verified hypothesis"). When evolution means "the process of evolution" (change in a population's genetic composition over successive generations), it is a fact under the primary definition, and (arguably) a fact under the secondary definition as well. -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. True. Whichever definition is used "fact" must convey some degree of certainty. — Axel147 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2."Evolution is a fact" because evolution was observed in a single experiment.

False. It is a fact because it has been seen in many experiments, and also in a huge amount of field data. And because the theory is well established.--Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing becomes a fact simply from being observed in a single experiment, because experiments need to be replicated before an observation can be considered verified. An unverified observation is not a fact. For example, if you heated water to 212 °F once and it boiled, you could not consider it a fact that "Water boils at 212 °F", because your observation could be a fluke. On the other hand, once you've consistently demonstrated that water boils at that temperature, it is safe to say that "Water boils at 212 °F" (assuming constants like pressure, of course) is a fact. "Water boils at 212 °F" is not a theory however, because it lacks an explanation for this fact; a theory would be something like "Water boils at 212 °F because X" (which would start as a hypothesis until it was confirmed). -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fill and Silence here. False as there must be some way of verifying the observation. — Axel147 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. A "fact" must be something directly observable with human senses.

This is much more complicated, now that we have quantum mechanics. However, in the conventional sense, this is approximately true. So when I see fossils evolving in the fossil record, the claim is that this sequence of evolving fossils is the data that supports the process of evolution; it is the observation or the "fact" of evolution. The theory has to do with natural selection and other mechanisms, and it is what we conjecture explains this observed "fact". Of course there are many other facts that support the theory as well. --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the primary definition, this is basically true, though Filll notes that there are grey areas. Under the secondary definition, this is untrue. Inferences and indirect observations are perfectly acceptable as long as they are strongly supported by the evidence (e.g., "It is a fact that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth"). -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think false. Using any reliable method or instrument will do. — Axel147 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

4. For an obseravtion to be referred to as a "fact" it must be repeatable.

All scientific observations and experiments must be repeatable by others. Otherwise, they are not scientific. So if I have an instrument that records an earthquake signal, or a signal from a supernova, another scientist should be able to use different instruments or the data from the same instrument to reach the same sorts of results. Another scientist should go look for fossils where I found mine and see the same fossils and same sequence. Repeatable. --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the primary definition, an observation does not need to be "repeatable" per se, but there must be some method of independent confirmation. For example, it might not be possible to repeat an earthquake, but independent confirmations of that earthquake from later observers are possible by reviewing various recordings, measurements, etc. and comparing "before" and "after" observations. Under the secondary definition, something doesn't need to be an observation to be a fact; theories and inferences can be facts, as long as they're independently verifiable ("repeatable" is not really appropriate here). -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Silence spot on. Some method of confirmation required though it doesn't need to be repeatable per se. — Axel147 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

5. If a piece of data is collected in an experiement this a "fact" irrespective of the reliability of the equipment used.

It is still a fact, but the error bars are bigger.--Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A fact, under the primary definition, is a verified observation. Some facts may be more likely to be true than others, but an observation isn't a fact if there is good reason to doubt it, e.g., if the equipment is unreliable. It sounds like this disagrees with Filll's interpretation of the primary meaning of "fact", so are there any sources that clarify the scientific answer(s) to this question? -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliabliliy matters — Axel147 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

6. "Dinosaurs once existed" is a fact because of the huge weight of evidence in support.

Yes by the secondary meaning of the term "scientific fact". Not by the first meaning. All one has is dinosaur bones found in different places with different dates. So the bones and their locations and character are the data. We have a theory that these bones are from big creatures (in past centuries, these were thought to be the bones of giants). --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as Filll said. -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly true under some definiton of a fact and I think it is the one that should be used here. When people say "evolution is a fact" they often intend it to include claims such as "man and monkey have common ancestors". I think this falls into the same category as "dinosaurs existed". — Axel147 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

7. For an obervation to be a fact it must be performed under controlled conditions.

No, controls are not necessary. However, the error bars etc will be much better if controls are in place.--Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not disputing this. — Axel147 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

8. The temperature of a liquid measured using a thermometer cannot be a fact because this requires assumptions about the workings of the thermometer.

This is impinging on philosophy of science. I suppose a philosopher would say yes. In practice, a scientist will still take it as fact, but then the interpretation of the "fact" will be more complicated. --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No. All facts rely on assumptions. That's why all facts are subject to doubt, on some level or other. All of science relies on assumptions about basic empiricism, induction, etc.; that doesn't mean that science produces no facts, it just makes facts fallible. -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree all facts rely on assumptions. This is false. It does not matter that there is a third party instrument involved as long is sound (independently calibrated etc.) — Axel147 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

9. If evolution is observed in 2 different experiments we have collected 2 facts rather than a single fact.

Not necessarily. Plural and singular distinctions here are a matter of linguistics. Evolution the process is singular, even though the evolution of insects from bacteria might be different than the evolution of men from bacteria. Two different processes, different sets of data supporting each one. So to state that the observed "process" is a fact, and it has been observed multiple times is correct I believe. So one can state that the process of evolution is a fact.--Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a "fact" (under the primary definition) can either be a generalized occurrence ("water boils at 212 °F", "the genetic composition of populations change over successive generations", etc.) or a specific occurrence ("a cup of water in my hotel room boiled at 212 °F on April 12, 2004 at 7:35 PM", "the genetic composition of a specific population of fruit flies varied significantly over the course of three generations", etc.). However, generalized facts are much more commonly discussed than specific ones because they are more relevant and important in science; one can construct few theories from specific facts, but generalized ones have a predictive aspect ("cups of water have been observed to boil at 212 °F in the past, therefore they are likely to continue to do so in the future") and are therefore well-suited bases for theorizing. -Silence 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a fact as a generalised occurance is only a fact in the "substantiated hypothesis" sense. After all it is not possible to observe that ALL cups of water boil at 212 °F (at atmospheric pressure). Such a generalised claim could rightly be called a "law" although that does not stop it from being a fact (or indeed hypothesis or theory). The point here is "evolution is a fact" is usually intended in the generalised sense. As such it only a fact by being a strongly supported hypothesis. — Axel147 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — Axel147 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguing this will not change the definitions in all the books of the scientists and the dictionaries. And remember, WP is not about truth, it is about verifiability. And as stupid as it is, this is how scientists use it. --Filll 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying the following (using your primary definition)...

• The statement "evolution is scientific fact" means simply that evolution is a piece of data collected in a least one experiment (that is in principle repeatable). The data need not be reliable as this depends on the quality of the equipment, skill of experimenter etc.

Do you think we would be having this debate if this was all that was meant! Of course "evolution is a scientific fact" says something about the certainty with which we should believe the claim. Moreover ALL the literature supports this, not the distorted Gouldian position you are trying to represent. Unless you can find another reference that uses the word "data" I suggest you remove it and replace with the word "observation" as a kind of compromise. — Axel147 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A scientific fact, under the primary definition, need not be a "piece of data"; a verified, reproducible observation is a fact made up of numerous individual observed events. Gravity and evolution are not facts because they are each an individual datum, but because they are consistently verified observations of how the world works ("the genetic compositions of organisms change over successive generations" for evolution, and "objects attract each other" for gravity). I disagree with Filll that facts don't need to be (or be based on) reliable data; a fact is a verified observation, as I understand it (much like a theory is a verified explanation for certain observations). Therefore saying that "evolution is a fact", under either the primary or secondary definitions, does indeed, in my view, affirm that it is verified, well-grounded science. The only real difference is that one (the "evolution as process" definition, using the primary definition of "fact") is a verified observation, whereas the other (the "evolution as theory" definition, using the secondary sense of "fact") is a verified explanation. -Silence 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slience here (and not Fill). "Verified observation" is far more palatable than "piece of data". For me "dinosaurs existed" is if you like a verified "indirect" observation. There is only a subtle difference as there is always some interpretation. (Brains must interpret the light the eyes receive.) — Axel147 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would classify "Dinosaurs existed" as a verified explanation, not a verified "indirect observation": an indirect observation is something like "I can see steam rising, so the water's probably boiling": it's inferring a phenomenon from its effects, situation, etc. Facts (in the "verified observation" sense) in quantum physics are probably a good example of this. It's potentially misleading to say that "Dinosaurs existed" is an observation, because it's not something we ever have seen, or something we can see; we can only infer it long after the fact. "The Earth revolves around te Sun" might be classified as an indirect observation (though I'm partial to the argument that it's a theory), but "The universe started in a Big Bang" can't fairly be called one. That's one key distinction between theoretical and factual (again, under the primary definition) propositions; some facts might rely on inferences or assumptions, and certainly all generalized facts rely on induction, but generalized facts (like "evolution occurs") tend to be reproducible, whereas theoretical events (like "humans evolved from other species") tend not to be. -Silence 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I accept saying "dinosaurs existed" is an observation is misleading! I'm just trying to clarify where you draw your line (and if that's consistent with the literature). If you are open to the idea "the earth revolves around the sun" could be a fact by virtue of being "indirectly" observable, presumably you also accept as "fact" things which were (but can no longer be) directly and repeatedly observed such as "Darwin existed". Here's where I think I still disagree with you. Let's look at a couple of crimes:

1. A man is brutally murdered by X and during the scuffle the murderer's mask comes off. 5 witnesses directly observe his face.
2. A second man is murdered by Y but this time there are no witnesses. However unlike the first case the murderer leaves fingerprints, DNA evidence and his face is caught on CCTV.

Presumably in analysing these you would say using the 'primary' definition of fact that "X is the murderer" is a fact if the observations and testimonies of the witnesses are sufficiently reliable. However in the second case "Y is the murderer" can never be said to be a fact: nobody ever directly observed it. It is only a highly substantiated inference.

This isn't what my intuition is telling me but maybe you are right. — Axel147 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call either one a fact because they're one degree of separation too far from direct, verifiable observation for my liking; the former is anecdotal, rather than factual, evidence, and the latter is a bit too interpretation-dependent for me to consider factual. Both seem more explanatory (and thus theoretical) than strictly observational (and thus factual) to me.

In the first scenario, I would consider it a fact that five people claimed to see the murderer's face, but eye-witness descriptions can be unreliable (in fact, I can't imagine any situation in which they aren't rather unreliable, unless we had dozens or hundreds of eye-witnesses rather than just 5) and don't account for enough possibilities (what if the murderer had an identical twin?), so I don't consider the fact of five people having seen his face to, in itself, warrant a leap to "it's a fact that X is the murderer", at least not in the primary definition (though quite possibly in the secondary definition, which is looser and allows for any well-evidenced claim to be called a "fact").

In the second scenario, I would consider it a fact that a certain set of fingerprints and certain DNA evidence were left on the scene of the crime, and a fact that certain footage records someone committing the crime. And I could likewise consider it a fact that the fingerprints and DNA belong to a certain person, or (less reliably) that the footage shows someone who seems to be the accused in question. But to link this group of facts, to me, requires a hypothetical or theoretical framework; it ceases to merely be a "fact", no matter how well-evidenced it is, and becomes an explanation for a series of interrelated facts. This is similar to the reason why I lean towards prefering to call "the Earth revolves around the Sun" a theory, rather than a fact (under the primary definition).

(And I won't even go into the issue of whether or not murder involves a moral judgment, thereby making "_ is the murderer" it a societal or ethical rather than scientific or factual proposition.) -Silence 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That all seems fair enough to me. So finally what is meant by "evolution is a fact". How about the statement "populations tend to change in trait composition from one generation to the next (not just in the lab but in nature)" is a "verifiable/verified observation". I think I would go along with that. — Axel147 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edwards

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)

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)

Fundamental flaw

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)

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)

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)

I'm attempting to have Orangemarlin blocked. Please ignore his silly comments. Gnixon 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Refuted theory

The article says that a theory is an explanation of nature that has never been refuted. Does that mean that refuted theories cease to be theories? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mihilz (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, isn't this an interesting one? Maybe there's a missing qualifier "valid" here. In fact, that's not right. Let's consider Newtonian mechanics. To what degree has it been "refuted"? Exactly to the degree to which we require the invocation of special relativity. What does that even mean?

Consider this: A (stationary) observer A observes a car moving at velocity v, in which an observer B sits. Observer B throws a stone out the window at velocity u relative to B. What is the velocity w of the stone relative to observer A? Newtonian mechanics tells us that the w is the gallilean sum w = v + u. Special relativity tells us that w is the sum w = (v + u)/(1 + vu/c^2) (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum, ~3*10^8 m/s).

Which is correct? Well, if v = 2 m/s and u = 1 m/s, then observation, Newtonian mechanics, and special relativity will agree to some ridiculous number of significant figures: w = 3 m/s. So at those (non-relativistic) velocities, Newtonian mechanics is a (valid) theory.

But if v = 2*10^8 m/s and u = 1*10^8 m/s, then Newtonian mechanics says w = 3*10^8, whereas relativity says w = (27/11) * 10^8 m/s, or about 2.45*10^8. Since observation will agree with relativity (to some ridiculous number of sig. figs.), Newtonian mechanics is wrong by a whopping 18%. At these (relativistic) speeds, Newtonian mechanics has been refuted. How's that for a (non-) answer?

Actually, I notice that the article uses the word "current" as well. So basically, if you view both "theory" and "refutation" as degrees of agreement and disagreement (respectively) with experiment, which is all any scientist can ask, the article is exactly correct. That the article does not go in to such (unnecessary) detail is due to succinctness and clarity. Tez 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fact"

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)

Actually I think the article is well written and clarifies this issue. Dan Gluck 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Second sentence

Is there anyway to wrap the first fourteen citations into one?-Wafulz 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Article missing a section?

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)

Although this article is not really about what constitutes a scientific theory in detail (that is found in the scientific theory article), however, after reading this, maybe in the new version of this article I should restructure it a bit to include some material on this.--Filll 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Other "theories"

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)

--Minasbeede 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

definition of evolution

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)

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)

Misunderstanding of fact, theory, and everything in between

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)

Do you have WP:RS and WP:V sources for your claims?--Filll 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well if you want to contribute here, you should get a name. And learn to sign your posts. You appear to be reading what an undergraduate/freshman level textbook contains on this issue and claiming this supports what appear to be confused views. This article uses the official National Academy of Science publications and definitions for sources. I am afraid that some undergraduate textbook is not really comparable to these NAS publications in any way, shape or form. In addition, there are dozens of quotes on this subject from the world leaders in the field of biology that are in accord with what is written in this article. I will not bother to pick apart your claims in detail at this point, aside from noting that I am afraid I disagree.--Filll 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am sorry if I sounded harsh. WP is all about appeal to the authority of WP:RS and WP:V sources. You might not like it, but this is how WP operates and it is a matter of policy. I am not a biology expert, but I am an expert in what is theory and what is fact in science. And my beliefs are bolstered by experts in biology and by the NAS, among others. So you cannot use a nickname because your computers are not secure? Hmm...--Filll 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Alright, I have found a few places to show what I am saying. First off Biology, Sixth Edition, by Campbell and Reece. I believe a small quote from there would be fair use, I don't understand fair use really, if not please remove: "May people associate facts with science, but accumulating facts is not what science is really about... what really advances science however, is some new theory that ties together a number of observations and experimental results that previously seem unrelated." Chapter 1, Introduction: Ten Themes in the Study of Life, under the heading The Process in Science and the section Theories in Science. Googling "Scientific Theory" obtains the following result: http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm, http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_theory.htm, http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html, and http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm. I don't think that I have properly explained what I am trying to say, and I must apologize. In the most simple and short way I can say this: this page is biased, but not necessarily wrong. The correlation between fact and theory and the belief that evolution is a fact is widespread, and since Wikipedia is intended to represent all viewpoints I can't simply refute this belief. What I can do is say this: a theory is a form of inductive reasoning, where all the evidence suggests something to be true but do not assure it. Theories can be proved wrong, but the most hardcore theories are hard to prove wrong because all the evidence fits and because of "Predictive Power". They are not, however, facts. Facts are irrefutable. This article represents the theory of evolution as fact. Various observations leading to evolution are called facts, but these are not in themselves evolution. Some seem to claim that these observations can be called evolution in lieu of any actual theory, but this is both unscientific and misleading, though it should probably be mentioned. This appears to be the view taken in the sources used for the page, though it really doesn't make sense. Finally I should clarify my original post that said that theory doesn't have a special meaning in science. In some ways it really does, but my point is that the meaning used in science is actually the correct meaning, and can be used in everyday speech, but is commonly used incorrectly. For example, a common high school textbook has a comic showing a detective refuting another detective for calling his explanation of the evidence they obtained a theory, when it should be a hypothesis. This is wrong. The specific example is a theory, because it is formulated around evidence. I hope that makes sense. I will work on a revision of the page and put it on my userpage for review. I don't want to make such a dramatic change without consensus, I hate edit wars. Over and out. DrolyttheDark 02:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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: [3]. 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)

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)

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)

I notice the sources you present above to bolster your case are not particularly reliable sources. I also do not find your arguments particularly compelling. I would ask you to review this talk page from the very beginning. I have answered similar questions before here, in great detail with many references. Read the entire thing, carefully, several times if you are having trouble understanding it.--Filll 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My changes to The Terminology of Science

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)

Fine with me. I've done some minor change. Dan Gluck 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are correct, in my view. My problem only arises in that this is part of the creeping tendency to make things more and more detailed and precise and complicated, which can make it more difficult for the average reader. However, this page is going to be rewritten when I get off my butt with many new references and a lot of new discussion. It will be much longer and more precise, and still include a simple introduction.--Filll 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Creationist rant

Because of my limited english I don't want to get into this discussion, yet I would like to reference this URL as [4] 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)

What you seek is in the following article: Evidence of evolution. Dan Gluck 10:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fact that the earth is at least 3.6 billion years old, it is only based on "facts" we know possibly not to be true (we expect that some materials act more less linear in small experiments as over millions of years, yet it is incorrect to call it a fact as the mathematical change of this being incorrect is relatively big) PS. I do not know how this talk pages work... hope this is not incorrect and I know my english isn't really well. Great Slovakia 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protecting the article?

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)

Inappropriate Tone in section "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature"

"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)

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)

directly from first source

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)

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)

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)

Allow me to endorse Filll's pithy clarification. WLU 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)