3 Comments

1. Right off the bat they equate natural selection with “climate change” — by which they of course mean “man-made” climate change, but don’t want to forced to defend that comparison.

   Then they misspell “proposed” as “prososed.”

   I think you’re right about the definition of laws.

   I also think they’re right in saying that “theory” is not at all a ‘derogatory’ term: evolution by natural selection will always be a theory, and a very good one, until it is ever disproved (unlikely) because it is not expressed by a mathematical equation.

   Reply to this comment

2. Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.

   …

   In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

   …

   …Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory — natural selection — to explain the mechanism of evolution.

   …

   Science is — and how else can I say it? — most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways.

   – Stephen Jay Gould, “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes”

   Reply to this comment

3. “I always heard that a “law” is basically a theory with an equation.”

   Oppo’s quote is a good one. Newton’s “law of gravity” is precise enough to take us to the planets but not precise enough to account perfectly for planetary orbits, for which we need Einstein’s “law of gravity:” The General Theory of Relativity. And while The General Theory of Relatively seems perfectly – and factually – descriptive to date, it may, in fact, be completely ‘causally’ wrong in the long run. Such is the beauty of science, Frank’s Silliness! to the contrary.

   Reply to this comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.