Jump to content

Talk:Evolution as fact and theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gubdognerd (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 17 July 2009 (Purpose of this Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.
WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Or is there a rule on this page that no change can be made without first posting it on the talk page?

This reversion of my changes to this article was made with instructions to discuss my changes on the talk page. The reverting party did not point to any error in or problem with my changes. So I am at a loss regarding what I am supposed to discuss. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is perfectly fine the way it is, changes like that to the opening sentence SHOULD be discussed. I felt your changes was unnecessary. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., so I've learned at Talk:Evolution#"'The field of' evolutionary biology" that "unnecessary" means adding "fluff and extra unnecessary words." In this article the changes I made removed fluff and unnecessary words. So does "unnecessary" have a different meaning here? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia of course assumes good faith with the majority of it's editors, and it encourages people to be bold in their edits, but in this instance I found your changes to fundamentally change much of the meaning of the initial sentence. When you have an article like this one that theres probably hundreds of people watching and editing it the initial sentences have gone though MANY revisions to arrive at what we have today. To fundamentally change it's wording in such a bold way SHOULD be done AFTER consensus has been obtained on the talk page. I felt that your changes should be undone until such consensus is obtained, instead of arguing why they was removed, lets discuss why you think your changes are better then what was already there? — raeky (talk | edits) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that I don't see my changes as "fundamentally" changing the wording. However, rather than argue that point I'll take up your suggestion to go through those changes on this page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Which meaning of evolution is intended, if it is not explicit, can be discerned by the context."

This is the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro to this article. I propose to delete for two reasons: First, it is wrong (there is the possibility that the meaning will not be explicit or discernable from the context). Second, it says something that is obvious. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I had with your edits are:
  • you took away the wording "fact of evolution"
  • the purpose of the article is to explain the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory" not to confuse people about their uses in Evolution. Evolution isn't in question here. Your edits made it sound like there was question about the "fact of" evolution.
  • your edits on Evolution also seem to indicate that there is doubt to the "fact of evolution" with your inserting links to it casting doubt.
The purpose of this article isn't about the Creationism or any of it's beliefs, it's about explaining the scientific definitions of "Fact of evolution" and "Theory of evolution." It has nothing to do with any doubts in the "theory" or "fact". — raeky (talk | edits) 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The points you raise are something I look forward to discussing in the future. However, the issue in this section of this talk page is whether the sentence "Which meaning of evolution is intended, if it is not explicit, can be discerned by the context." should be deleted from the introductory paragraph of this article. Do you have an opinion regarding that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is in part to the above conversation: Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_is_not_a_theory._Evolutionary_theory_is_a_theory. Stating that just the word "evolution" when written could be referring to the fact or theory part and that one needs to look at how it's used in context to ascertain which the author is meaning. It's common for writers to shorten evolutionary theory to just evolution, causing some confusion. The sentence you refer to instructs the reader that context of how it's used is important to the figure out the authors meaning. I think it might be worded better, but to wholesale delete it I'm not sure. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that something can be both wrong and obvious. I agree with Raeky that the sentence is important. i also know Butwhatdoiknow is making a good faith suggestion. here is what I propose: change the word "can" to "should." Would both of you accept this? If so please make the change and we can move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is potentially worded better, I do see his concern that the sentence as a whole in it's current placement could be confusing. I don't think it needs expanding out to multiple sentences to say what I said above though that may be to much. If Buthwhatdoiknow accepts your suggestion it would be fine by me. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The change is fine by me, the sentence will then be both correct and obvious. I still don't see why it is necessary to include in this article a fourth grade reading lesson (i.e., context is important to determine the meaning of a word) and I don't read Raeky as being all that sure that it should be included. Sirubenstein, can you explain why you believe it is "important"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, deserves an answer. The answer is the sae reason why we even have this article. The answer it, the article on Evolution explains this in a way that anyone with a fourth grade education should be able to understand, and yet we regularly get talk on the talk page that says EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY YOU ARE BIASED TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ON A BELIEF THAT CLAIMS IT IS A FACT WHEN IT IS JUST A BELIEF AND WHY DON"T YOU INCLUDE THE OTHER SIDE YOU ARE BIASED. Or something to that effect. So we have to send them to this article. And since they need to go here and read this, we need to explain everything as explicitly as possible even if we think it is obvious, because "obviously" it is obvious to us and not to everyone else. Writing for an audience of every English-speaking person with access to the internet and that means explaining things that are obvious to us because we have to admit, the whole world is not like us and something that is obvious to us may not be obvious to someone else, and it is precisely THAT someone else a good encyclopedia article is directed to, not those of us who already know so much we can write encyclopedia articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. Thank you. Let me cogitate a bit and see whether I can come up with an alternate version that includes a hint regarding why it is there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to keep in mind these pages are nit-picked over by every nut-bag (probably not the most sensitive word to describe them) with an internet connection. That is why we need plenty of these types of pages that break it down into very simple English so they can try to maybe understand the scientific method and scientific uses of words like "fact" and "theory." It also means we have to be very careful about who is inserting subtle changes into the meaning/context these pages to prevent the "nut-bags" from trying to undermine the purpose of these pages for their own agendas. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed replacement

Here is a first draft of text to replace the current sentence:

People using the word "evolution" do not always make clear which of these two meanings they intend to convey. This essay provides tools for discerning the meaning of the word from the context in which it is used.

Am I anywhere close to the meaning and purpose of the current sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am relunctant to accept that "evolution is both fact and theory" necessarily implies a double meaning for the word evolution, even though I would agree it is often meant this way. To my mind it is perfectly reasonable to describe a single concept such as "dinasaurs existed" as both fact and theory without invoking multiple meanings. — Axel147 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. 'Evolution's single meaning simply encompasses both the factual and the theoretic components, in the same way that 'gravity' encompasses both Newtonian (and later Einsteinian) theoretical constructs, as well as the fact that if you drop something, it falls. I think any statement that had the implication that 'evolution as theory' and 'evolution as fact' were talking about two separate meanings of 'evolution' would be misleading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howsabout "When the term evolution is used to refer to theory about the fact rather than the occurrence itself, this usage is normally clear from its context." . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an improvement over the initial proposal, in that it isn't misleading. It is however sufficiently convoluted that I suspect it would confuse many readers. I would suggest "Whether 'evolution' is being used to refer to a theory or the underlying facts, is usually clear from the context" as less convoluted. But is it clear from the context? Such contexts as macroevolution, natural selection and transitional fossils can all be about fact, theory or (more commonly) a combination of both. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the original phrasing, I would suggest "Whether evolution is intended to mean facts, the theories constructed to explain these facts, or (as is quite common) both these aspects, should be determined from the context."HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in the intro the article says "The point of this statement is to distinguish the two meanings of evolution." So I would build upon Hfrfn's suggestion to propose:

People using the word "evolution" do not always make clear whether they intend to refer to the facts, the theories constructed to explain these facts, or (as is quite common) both these aspects. In such cases the meaning should be determined from the context in which the word is used."

Better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still getting my head around this, so apologies if I'm haring off in all directions. But how often would scientists not be talking about both? The scientific view would tend to be that facts are only useful to the extent that they validate/falsify hypotheses or theories and hypotheses and theories are only useful to the extent that they explain facts. I'd think it would be rare that they would discuss one without the other being at least in the back of their mind. Should the default be to assume both unless the context clearly demonstrates one or other? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at it from a creationist point of view, i.e. evolution is only a theory, they would take exception to it being defined as a fact. I think any explanation here should be to explain that when used scientifically evolution theory is a distillate of the observable facts to explain them. The original sentence I think is only adding confusion to this. I agree with you, Hrafn, that from the scientists point of view the use of evolution is going to mean both the facts and theory in most instances. They would present their findings (facts) then discuss how it supports or doesn't support the current theory. I'd imagine most uses of the word Evolution in a scientific paper would be meaning the theory and how their findings supports it or not, imho. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it through further, in a high school environment evolution would also probably cover both facts and theory. I suspect that a teacher would teach the facts because theory on its own would be too dry, but also the theory as well, as facts without theory lacks a narrative. How about "Evolution in most contexts means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts."
"The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion may mean just the theory or just the facts depending on context." Would be my change to it... A lot of discussion for one sentence ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. One sentence maybe -- but the sort of sentence that can come back to kick us in the teeth if worded carelessly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts depending on context."
OK by me. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only change I would suggest would be from "The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means ..." to "Most people use the word "evolution" to mean ..." (which, I guess, would result in "but may on occasion mean" becoming "but the word may also be used to mean"). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why you would use "Most people" those words are borderline weasel words... — raeky (talk | edits) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most people use ..." provides an actor (and is no more - or, admittedly, less - weasely than the passive voice phrase "The use ... in most cases means"). I suppose you could change it to "People most often use ..." (still weasely, but less obviously so). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolution in most contexts means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts." sounds unnecessarily wordy, and it is a complex sentence I think would put off many readers. I honestly see nothing wrong with what we have: my view is, if it is accurate and simple, keep it. To answer an early question, in many high school biology classes or first year biology classes in college in the US, where I was educated, many students are presented only with the very basics of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and are introduced to Mendelian genetics separately, i.e. they do not get "the modern synthesis" as such. This is why so many creationists believe in "microevolution" - they had to learn about Mendle and peas at some point, and know that two brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed kid. But aside from Darwin's finches (which was the effect of speciation, Darwin did not observe speciation as it was occuring), this is what most people get. I have since been teaching in the UK and given how students begin specializing around age 15, most university students I meet who are not in the life sciences don't even know Darwin's theory (although they will of course tell you they believe in it). Many students, even graduate (p/g) students who train in biology learn a set of laboratory techniques and the phylogenetic tree - theya re trained to describe organisms and analyze the functioning of organs or hormones or ensymes, and it can get very technical ... it is not hard for a student to get advanced training in biology without studying evolution (as "fact") as such. It is really relevant only to those who plan on conducting research relevant to evolutionary theory, or in ecology. Conversely, the articles Wikipedia cites that contain the actual research documenting evolution in process, I mean speciation, like the hawthorne fly, do not recapitulate evolutionary theory. They take it for granted, they assume their readers (these journals are aimed at other PhD.s) know basic evolutionary theory or they wouldn't be reading the article. These articles describe the local ecology, the life history of the organisms in question, their location in the food chain, and what data they have on specific gene frequencies, and this is plenty for a journal article to document that two species are emerging where there used to be one because a new niche opened up. I really doubt that anyone can infer the modern synthesis/evolutionary "theory" from that, unless they already know it. I vote for keeping it as it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're on the same page, the issue here is the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to this article. Slrubenstein evidently believes that sentence is fine "as is."
I - as a reader encountering it for the first time a couple of days ago - thinks the sentence is distracting because leads readers to wonder why such a generic English lesson would appear in this article. To solve that problem, a few of us have been working on modifying the language to include some explanatory text.
The current proposal seems to be to replace the current sentence with the following sentence (with the liberty taken of dropping the "depending on the context" clause from the end):

People most often use the word "evolution" to mean the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion use the word to mean just the theory or just the facts.

Once those of us who are interested in changing the text agree on wording we can put the proposed change to a vote. (With the expectation that Slrubenstein will vote "no.") Meanwhile, are there any suggested improvements to the language above? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the cross out with the idea of making the sentence simpler. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this whole page is for the _very basic_ concepts of the definition of 'theory' and 'fact.' Most people of some science education will know instinctively what they are, but they're here because Joe Blow general public doesn't and questions it all the time. I don't agree though with Slrubenstein that it is fine the way it is, I think it's a bit confusing when your looking it at the prospective of Joe Blow. Simplifying it down to 3rd grade level of English is probably ideal in the case of this article. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the first paragraph including the last sentence and do not see what Butwhatdoiknow sees. I agree with Raeky about keeping things simple. If there is a way to make it simpler but just as accurate, I would be fine with that. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New suggestion

Here is my suggested wording to replace the lead:

The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur. On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them.

I find the current wording to be quite mysterious, and I suspect I understood it only because I already knew about the theory/fact divide. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you still need something to the effect that sometimes the text does not explicitly say which one, and you have to try to figure it out from context. In part, this is one reason for this article - to help teach readers how to do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, in cases where the text doesn't explicitly say one or other, it will most probably mean both. I'm reasonably happy with Johnuniq's wording. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I respectfully request you read more journl articles ant college textbooks (please se my explanaton in the section above). i just disagree - in fact, I think the only real reason for this article is that there are so many sources that are mean one or the other but are not clear, which can confuse readers. Why even have this article, when the Evolution article is so much bette? It is because there is one point that confuses many readers. It won't help starting by ignoring or dismissing their confusion, we should try to help. 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put my wording in the article because there is the beginning of a consensus, and it might help to see it "live". Here is a possible alternative for the last sentence, if anyone likes the mention of "context":

On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may occasionally refer to just the known facts, or just the explanatory theory. The context where "evolution" is used should make its meaning clear.

I don't think we have to say everything in the lead, so I did not include it. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hung up on the word context as such. I just think this sentence "On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them." is inaccurate. This sentnce: "On its own, the word "evolution" usually implies the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them." may be accurate. But I have read too many articles where evolution refers to one, or the other, and does not make it clear. I fear that the current wording can only increase conusion for whom this material is relatively new. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, help us out here. What text would you propose? (Here is one approach: "On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like Butwhatdoiknow's suggestion. Perhaps others can improve upon it, but it is accurate, clear and direct, my main criteria, so it is fine by me! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding first paragraph

I think everyone has to be careful because as far as I'm concerned most of the confusion is caused by fact being used in 2 ways rather than evolution. And I'm afraid to say I rather blame Gould for this. I'm sure he meant well with his simplistic "facts and theories are different things" but really this is a dreadful simplification. The whole process of understanding, the whole scientific method is not just a 2 dimensional enterprise where facts are things we observe and theories are explanations. When we say "dinosaurs existed" is a fact we don't necessarily mean we can go out and see one in our garden (or that any human has ever directly observed one), but it doesn't stop us feeding this fact into an explanatory model about how dinosaurs lived. In other words the whole explanation process is hierarchical. We start out establishing the basics as fact. Then we speculate test and observe and eventually our new hypotheses are rejected or so firmly established that they also become fact. This is a new foundation from which we are able to build further.

Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this (otherwise why would creationists get upset!). In the article itself Dawkins, Futyuma, Campbell, Muller, National Academy of Sciences are completely clear about this. "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it. That's much more like it. That is what all the fuss about! The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly. — Axel147 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axel, do you have language to propose to fix the problem? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article shouldn't cater to the fundamentalist crowd. Of course people who believe women was made from a rib, theres talking snakes and all that crap are never going to be convinced, so we shouldn't even try. The scientific community agrees "evolution is a fact" because theres 150 years of empirical data that backs it up and virtually squat that disputes it. It's inconceivable any new evidence could be uncovered that would wholesale dismiss the theory so it's as good as a fact. This may be a core problem with the article as a whole. We're not going to "win over" the people who believe in supernatural beings, if the bible said the world was flat they wouldn't buy all the scientific data that it isn't either, no matter how true it is. If this article is simply to "rub in their faces" the fact of evolution, it's pointless. As it is now it does a decent job of explaining the context of how "fact of evolution" and "theory of evolution" are used. I donno, I'm sorta ranting, but I think this could easily spiral out of control and expand this topic/issue beyond where it needs to go. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raeky, I do not think that this is what Axel meant. I note that Gould remains a reliable source, but Axel makes very valuable points. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm. I'm not sure I have the language to fix. But really I'm just trying to make the article as clear as possible rather than catering to any particular crowd. My point is this
If people are able to walk away believing evolution is fact on account of trait differences observed in the lab without also being fully committed to the idea that man and monkey are cousins, then this article has failed in its duty and creationists have won the war of words.
I'm not saying here it is the article's job to convince people evolution is a fact. But it absolutely must present head-on that in most of the cited references "evolution is a fact" means something big! It encapsulates common ancestry, speciation. It is something creationists should want to reject. To reduce "evolution is fact" to narrow experimental observations even if they are reproducible without any further inference is to miss the point. It is also not true most of the citations quoted here. — Axel147 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I think there are two "facts" salient to Axel's point (and it doesn't matter what you think about creationists - what Axel and I hope I are saying is motivated by what we think about science): first, it is a fact that speciation though natural selection has been observed in the field. But more important, it is a fact that we and chimpanzees have a common ancestor and evolved into different species not because this has been demonstrated in a lab or observed to happen in the field, but because the power of the theory of evolution to direct scientists to important data and to make sense of that data is such that this interpretation of the data is so convincing that all scientists consider it a fact as much as anything that a person can "see" for themselves, in the lab or in the field. I think Axel's point, and he is right, is that what makes a scientific fact a "fact" is not just that one has eye-witnessed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even in a lab, a "fact" is not generally directly observed, but rather filtered through layers of equipment, that usually themselves rely on layers of underlying theories. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I completely agree with you. Most of the people quoted in the article are using fact as hypothesis/inference so highly substantiated with evidence for practical purposes we accept it as true. And yes maybe all facts fit into this description: whatever we consider "the world's data" our observations always depend on assumptions or bits of theory about our measuring instruments.
So I guess the original point is if a reasonable number of people use "evolution is a fact" as a shorthand for "man and monkey have a common ancestor" we have to be careful saying in the opening paragraph, "fact of evolution refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred." — Axel147 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this goes back to the fact (!) that the concept "fact" has two different meanings, and both are relevant to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the intro neds to be rewritten, but I do think that the explanation of "fact" needs to be explained. The emeregence of the hawthorne fly is one example of an observed change. But the fossil record also enables us to observe changes over time, as does DNA evidence fvrom different species, and comparative anatomy. I think Axel's point is that these kinds of data are as much "the fact of evolution in action" as the observation of the emergence of the hawthorne fly over a fifty year period. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it wasn't a fact that mankind and apes have a common ancestor, evolution would still be a readily observable fact as many instances from peppered moth evolution onwards demonstrate. The demonstrations that speciation occurs imply that humans could also have common descent from other species, and numerous facts in various fields support that implication. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the solution to remove "the observed" from the sentence? (So it reads "First, the "fact of evolution" refers to changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Authors of encyclopedias are editors. The issue here is not some trick of editing a sentence. Our task is to communicate to people that evolution is a fact, by any definition of "fact" that most people have in their head. It is also to explain to people what a "scientific fact" is and how evolution refers to what scientists mean by "facts." Axel was very clear in his first post that "fact being used in 2 ways." The problem - his point - is that it is not clear about these two ways. Let's put aside the right wording of the introduction for now anf make sure that the body of the article does just this. We need a section with examples of one kind of fact - observable changes in gene frequencies, including observable speciation as in the Hawthorne flie. But we also need another section explaining that what we observe never speaks for itself, that facts are not just what we see, that theories provide frameworks for deciding what facts are. The article needs to do both of these things effectively, then we can rewrite the introduction to reflect this. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axel's original remarks concluded with "The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly." I thought that is the problem we are trying to solve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that. But introduction introduce the article as a whole. A change to one implies a change to the other. It makes sense to make sure that Axel's point is well-communicated in the body, and then we can figure out the best way to summarize it in the introduction. I say this because i do not think Axel's point was just about phrasing; his point was about how the phrasing has very substantial implications about the content of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is to provide background for the statement "evolution is a fact and a theory". The various meanings of "theory" and "fact" should be explored, and the article should clearly state that the "theory of evolution" is a fact in the everyday meaning of the word. However, there are no words to convince creationists; all we can do is present inviting, reliably sourced material that may entice the uncommitted to think for themselves. A didactic introduction would not be encyclopedic, and it would be a poor tactic.
Slrubenstein's approach is correct: Get the article right, and worry about the introduction later. About the only problem with the article is that it is a little long winded. Its sheer length invites doubt as to whether "evolution is a fact". However, I wouldn't want much removed. Perhaps the "Evolution, fact and theory" first para could have another sentence addressing the question "is evolution true?", although that would defeat what I just said about tactics. --Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with agree with Slrubenstein's approach. I think he is also right that 'evolution is a fact, by any definition of "fact" that most people have in their head' and therefore it is probably better not to overemphasize any one of these definitions in the opening. (Quite a few of the words in the current article were originally penned by me so I'm quite happy now to sit back and express my thoughts and let others do the editing!) — Axel147 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A general reminder.

Help:Editing#Summarize your changes. I can say no more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "the observed"

Those who want to improve the body of this article are free to do so. Meanwhile, I see no reason why there should be a lock on editing the introduction. (Particularly since no one is actually making or proposing any particular edits to the body.) Changes to the introduction now will not prevent further changes after the body is improved.

With that in mind I propose that "the observed" be removed from the third sentence of this article. With that change the sentence will read: "First, the "fact of evolution" refers to changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred." Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read this talk and don't see why removing "the observed" would be useful. I like how "observed" succinctly justifies the "known to have occurred" claim (recall that people will say they "know" some miracle occurred). Removing "observed" weakens the "evolution is fact" argument. I suppose there should be a reference; I might look for one later if you don't remove the term. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I am trying to solve is folks reading "the observed" and saying "oh, yes, micro-evolution, of course you can observe that." Or is that not much of a problem? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well macroevolution in the form of speciation is also observable, as are probably quite a few other things that don't fit with the "folks"'s worldview. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what the problem is. I've added a link to help folks like me understand the meaning of the word in this sentence. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for "changes in populations of organisms over time"?

OK, but actually what I had in mind was a reliable source with examples of observations of "changes in populations of organisms over time". Does anyone know of a suitable reference, preferably a simple description suitable for the level of this article? Observed Instances of Speciation might be sufficient. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For why doesn't it say "of how"?

The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article reads: Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur. The use of the word "why" strikes me as somewhat theological. Is there some reason we shouldn't change the last clause to which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to adding the word "how." But I have to say I am mystified when you say that "why" strikes you as somewhat theological. When I ask my kid why he was late to lunch, the answer need not have anything to do with intent (as in intelligent design), it is often a sequence of events over which he had no control. But I'd be glad to know what others think. If your point is that the articl ought not to suggest intentionality or telology I agree completely, I am just not entirely sure that "why" always implies this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is because Evolution is not supposed to explain WHY anything happens. WHY implies intent by its definition. It implies cause. 69.207.144.13 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

falsified hypotheses

This is currently in the definition of scientific theory. This is Karl Popper's definition of a theory and is only one point of view. It is common among scientists, but it is not the only view and does not actually fit well with evolutionary theory. Other historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science have provided more refined definitions of theory. One of the best comes from Philip Kitcher (Kitcher was not trying to tell scientists what they should do - which was Karl Popper's intention in his definition; Kitcher is trying to describe what scientists really do). Kitcher agrees with Popper that "There is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail." [1] He also takes into account Hempel and Quine's critiques of Popper, to the effect that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists we view scientific theories as an "elaborate collection of statements", some of which are not falsifiable, while others—those he calls "auxiliary hypotheses", are.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:

  1. Unity: "A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems" (1982: 47).
  2. Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).
  3. Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit).

Like other definitions of theories, including Popper's, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) "observational consequences". But, like the observation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible—and equally important—observational consequence.

I know this is to much, way too much to add to the article. But if only for NPOV sake (let alone accuracy) I think we should define theory in this article in a way that is consistent with Kirtcher and not just slavishly follow Popper. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing with much of what Kitcher says, I'm unsure of the extent to which this is a useful definition. For one thing, it would appear to require a lot of historical perspective -- by which time it is generally already widely accepted as to what was or was not a scientific theory. To that extent it would appear to be a descriptive rather than analytic definition. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i tis a way more useful definition for biologists than the "falsifiable hypothesis" model which is used more by physicists. And it is a far more useful definition for understanding the theory of evolution. What I wrote is not useful, because it is too long and wordy.
My poijnt is that we are using a definition of theory that many scientists do not use and that has been widely criticized by philosophers of science. Sooner or later there will be a careful reader who will only end up confused, trying to related this out-of-date defdinition of theory to actual research in evolution. How about "A theory is a problem-solving strategy that can be applied to a wide range of phenomena, and generate new and frutiful questions to ask about the world. It also generates claims that can be checked against empirical evidence." Or something like that? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the 'falsification' becomes increasingly ambiguous a concept as you go further and further from a simple mathematical relationship between experimentally-measurable quantities. I would even agree that what Kitcher is talking about has more relevance for biology, I'm just not comfortable calling it a definition of a theory -- it feels more like 'hallmarks of' or 'signs of' (or similar looser term) a theory to me. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you. I would oppose anyedefinition of "theory" in this article. How about a "description" or "account" of what scientists mean by "theory?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I also wanted to remove this. The reason is didn't is because I already made substantial changes (improvements I think) to the article several months ago and at the time didn't want to upset other editors by continuing further. From where I stand the Popperian view is completely outdated and wrong. Lot's of scientific theories are probabilistic in nature. In other words they only predict what is likely to happen. If in a particular experiment the expected thing doesn't happen of course we cannot simply reject the theory. — Axel147 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axel, does this mean you support my alternative? Or do you want to make your own proposal? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I particularly disagree with anything Kitcher says according to your summary (though for me rejecting a hypothesis and producing an alternative are 2 sides of the same coin rather than alternative outcomes). It seems fine. But I'm not not sure he's the authority on this? I think basically all this article can try to do here is make a summary point then refer people to the scientific method article. I'm not so comfortable with the suggestion the scientific method should be presented one way for physicists and a different way for biologists. So I think I'm all for changing the current couple of sentences on this if it replaced by something roughly consistent with the scientific method article and not too wordy. (I'll just sit back and not make any proposal is that's ok.) Hope that helps. — Axel147 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True in addition to factual

I am wondering whether this article should discuss whether evolution is true — see Heat-the-Hornet,Richard-Dawkins? This is subtly different from discussing whether it is fact, theory or hypothesis. — Axel147 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why discuss something that has been supported and substantiated beyond scientific reproach? Take it to conservapedia if you want to talk about that. 69.207.144.13 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "true" issue is interesting, but I don't think this article is the place to do it. My understanding is that the whole point of this article is to explain the "fact and theory" label being applied to evolution. Bringing in "true" would send it in a different and less focused direction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?. It is also relevant to this article. Jomasecu talk contribs 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some inconsistencies in the article

The author(s) of the article have/has stated the definition of evolution as to avoid confusion and also have/has defined the term "fact". It is said that fact is a combination of verifiable observations and an established hypothesis. Evolution is counted as fact and yet it should only be a theory, according to those definitions. Evolution in descriptions 1 and 2 are/were not observed or completely verifiable hypotheses. No one has observed or recorded a true series of species change. Moreover, evolution is a theory because it is not so firmly supported by evidence, or it would not be opposed so strongly, and I am not referring to religious objections but scientific ones and philosophical ones.

There are no plausible objections to the concept of gravity or its reality, but there are objections given by scientists to "macro-evolution" (changing species/one common ancestor). Fruit flies do not change species, nor their future generations incredibly different. Evolution on a smaller scale is obviously consistent and verifiable, but evolution on a large scale is merely a theory and nothing more. --98.240.75.248 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Iracundiarock[reply]

I'm not sure you read the article completely. Scientific fact and theory are not mutually exclusive. That evolution happens is fact. How it works is theory. Speciation has, in fact, been observed. Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Jomasecu talk contribs 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying fact and theory for me. But the examples on the list of the evolution talk page are not very informative. If you have time, could you please give me some examples, just a few, of observed speciation? So far, I am keeping the original opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracundiarock (talkcontribs) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ira, are you using "theory" in the non-scientific or the scientific sense? Also, are you using "observed" in the non-scientific or the scientific sense? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Has evolution ever been observed? Jomasecu talk contribs 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The speciation of the hawthorne fly has been observed. But so what? Astronomer's never observd the big bang but it is considered a fact because all the data support it, it is far more than a theory, it is a fact in terms of the domiant tneories of physics and astronomy.Scienstis claim as facts all sorts of things that are not direcly observed. So what? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am talking about it in the scientific sense. It cannot be tested, but it can be used as an explanation until something more plausible comes along. Also, just because scientists say it is true does not mean it is. Many Greek and Dark Age scientists who were not religious viewed the sun to go around the earth, but they were reprimanded by only a small group of people who held true knowledge based on facts and not opinions. -IRACUNDIAROCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.75.248 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang example above was sort of poor. Redshift as measured in galaxies which are distant from Earth is a fact. The Big Bang, that is the explanation that this redshift implies the universe started from a point and expanded outwards, is a theory. Evolution is a fact, in the sense that changes in species over time have been observed as clearly as one can observe anything. The theory is in the explanation of these changes. This is pretty much covered in the lead... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there are many scientific facts that are not known through direct observation. IRACUNDIAROCK it sounds like you do not know what the scientific sense is as you are not making sense. Theories have observational consequences and the theory of evolution does, and those consequences match up with what the theory says. In any event the hawthorne fly is a "test" it is speciation observed as it occurs. AS to your claims about older scientists I am not sure what you mean. Science as we mean it did not really egin until Bacon and Galileo. Who are you talking about? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the fact of evolution has been tested. For example, evolution predicted that future fossil discoveries would unearth "transitional" fossils between land mammals and whales (a concept scoffed at by creationists). The test is what came out of the ground. As it turns out, evolution passed that test. See The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence. In fact, evolution has passed every test that every applicable field of study has thrown at it. That is why there is no debate in the scientific community regarding the fact of gradual change over billions of years (i.e., the fact of evolution). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case someone misinterprets what you're saying, let it be clear that whales are only one of a huge number of examples of the fossil evidence showing transitions from early forms to current forms of organisms. Since this will be a moving target, they creationist community will move from cetaceans to some other animal where transitional fossils aren't yet available. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it doesn't matter that we have transitional fossils for cetaceans. I think there are two related points, that are relevant to "evolution as theory." The first is that it was considered an overwhelmingly powerful theory by most natural scientists within decades of its publication and many many decades before transitional fossils were found for all sorts of species - what we want to do is explain things in such a way that people can understand why it was such a great theory before those discoveries. The second issue is that a good theory has observational consequences. I think this is the real point behind Butwhatdidiknow's comment - even if there are species that currently exist from whom we have no transitional fossils yet, the fact remains that the theory has observational consequencies that currently direct research in fruitful ways. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, Science, and more

One more point. Science doesn't deal in "truth." However, it has been shown that anti-Science creationists do lie. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlin, are you serious? "Science does not deal in truth"? What does it deal in, thoughts? Ideas? Guesses? You clearly have a poor understanding of basic logic because if science does not deal in truth then it serves no real purpose. Biology is about finding the truth about life. Geology is about finding the truth about our earth. About Creationists, everybody lies, FWY. I am a creationist and I love science. Your arguement is weak at best. Things that do not deal in truth are called arts.Prussian725 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to back OM up on this. Science is not about "truth". Science is about making accurate predictions. That is all. If you think science is about truth, you do not know much about science. I could go into detail, but this is not the place to do it and it would take many pages to describe adequately.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fucking serious. Science does not deal in TRUTH. Creationists are anti-science, as confirmed by your statement about science and truth. Oh, by the way, I don't consider your comments about my knowledge of basic logic as being very productive. Meh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the act of sexual intercourse is germane to evolution, I suspect that your use of the vernacular to refer to that act will not help you to convince anyone of the point you are trying to make. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prussian is a creationist. His knowledge of science probably doesn't include sexual intercourse, especially as it relates to science. Once again, science is not about truth, especially since who defines truth? That's the realm of religion. So, I fucking know what I fucking know.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth." Truth is something religionists want to tell their adherents. It's not something that science claims. And one more creationist is put in his place, and another notch on the hockey stick of science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian writes, "You clearly have a poor understanding of basic logic because if science does not deal in truth then it serves no real purpose." It is insulting to tell OrangeMarlin he has a poor understanding of basic logic. Moreover, basic logic does not enter into this; the question is whether science deals with truth and this is a normative or empirical question but not a logical one. Science does not deal in truth, and it has a fantastic, tremendous purpose. If Prussian does not understand that, I would suggest that she needs to learn more about science. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this discussion even take place?

I humbly suggest that this discussion will not be fruitful and, in any case, should not take place on this page. So I encourage you both to leave it where it is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you ask this question supports my contention that you are having a dialogue with Prussian725 that belongs on a user talk page, not an article talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this bluntly..........oh never mind, I actually don't care what you say. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BWDIK here, the discussion is clearly OT and unrelated to improving the article. If someone has asked you to keep it off, it's polite to do so given you are violating talk page guidelines anyway and given the large notice at the top and the fact OT discussions are regularly removed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not interested in open discussion then by all means don't have an open discussion. This does not seem relevant to the article either way. DoktorDec (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this Article

After reading this article, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose of having it is. According to my understanding of Wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong) articles should correspond to real world issues/events, so I guess I'm wondering is there is there a real world debate about evolution as theory and fact, cause as it is now the article just reads like a take that against creationism, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of any issue. There is already an article on the word Theory, most of it taken up by the scientific use of the word, so why don't we have an article on what theory and fact means in science rather than specifically about evolution, which just causes endless edit wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.239.233 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a real world issue. It is a common creationist claim that evolution is "only a theory" and therefore no more valid than any other "theory" somebody might think up. This is not a claim that is made regarding other scientific theories, thus the emphasis on evolution. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the existence of two separate meanings of "evolution" causes a great deal of confusion and this article aids those who are new to the field to understand that there are two separate meanings and to distinguish between the two. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are not two "meanings" of evolution. The article is here to make certain that the word "theory" isn't abused, as it is by creationists. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of this article says "evolution" is used in two ways - should we be looking at changing that sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the original and principal authors of this article, allow me to give you some historical perspective. This article was created to examine this important issue in its own article. Before, this issue was addressed in several other articles, including evolution and one with a title something like "Evolution-creationism controversy". In the interests of completeness and compactness, this article was created.

Contrary to what has been stated above, the subject addressed in this article is of vital and central importance in the debate between evolution and creationists. The most common argument that creationists use against evolution is that it is "only a theory". This argument has formed the basis of numerous lawsuits, including at least one that reached the US Supreme Court. This argument is prominent in creationist literature, creationist speeches, sermons, propaganda, museums and books.

The fallacy of this creationist argument is addressed in hundreds of articles and books written by evolutionary scientists, including several published by the National Academy of Sciences. So not only is this argument important to creationists, but to those defending against creationist attacks, and to the legal system as well.

The reason that this argument fails is of course that it rests on several types of confusion. It is imperative that any enterprise which has pretensions of producing a scholarly reference work like Wikipedia expose and reveal the confusions that fuel this argument and controversy.

This article has a partially rewritten version in sandbox form. The sandbox version is far cleaner with more references and the references are better organized. I would ask our frantic deletionists above not to get too giddy and full of themselves before they understand the reason this article exists, and something about the history that gave rise to this article, and plans for this article in the future.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does one have to do to take part of the rewriting process and to learn of the plans for the future? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curses, Boris, has he discovered our secret laboratory? dave souza, talk 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a moat which keeps the anti-science hoards from crashing our Darwin's Birthday party. Since they believe in miracles, prayers, and homeopathic potions, they won't be able to figure out how to cross it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I apparently "misunderstand" the definitions of fact and theory. I don't agree with the implication that much of the political controversy over evolution is just a semantics issue stemming from creationist ignorance. When an opponent of evolution argues against the factuality of evolution, I don't think he or she is saying that theories cannot be comprised of facts which lead to the formulation of the theory. In my observation it seems more often that the supporters of evolution are trying to label the overall theory as fact due to the facts that do indeed comprise it, and the opponents of the theory protest this assertion. You wont find any legitimate creation scientists or ID proponents arguing against facts like natural selection or homology in bones. I think the controversy stems from the interpretations of facts. A naturalist might observe similarities in bones structures of different organisms and conclude that the fact that similarites exist is strong evidence for a common anscestor. This is obviously a reasonable, scientific conclusion. However, it seems to me that those hostile to the opponents of evolution misunderstand the fact that supporters of opposing theories do not argue the existence of evidence, but rather what the evidence implies. A creation scientist would look at homology and conclude that is strong evidence for a common designer(s), an equally reasonable, scientific conclusion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that both sides seem more obsessed with making the other look ignorant or stupid than trying carry out a mature, scientific discussion. That is why I think that the idea being that the purpose of this article is to enlighten people about idiotic creationist fallacies is not neutral. Both sides fall into the trap as evolution refer to the overall theory as fact. I agree with the idea that a better purpose for this article would be to simply clarify generically how theories can be made up of numerous facts and still be only labelled as theories. Obviously this concept is an issue looming over evolution, so it could still be mentioned as a prime example, but I feel the article it better suited in the generic sense. Otherwise I agree with the author of the unsigned comment toward the top of the page that "the article just reads like a take that against creationism, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of any issue" and that it "just causes endless edit wars?"

Fact and Theory

The distinction between 'theory' and 'fact' used on this page cannot be sustained, as shown by Duhem, Collingwood, Quine, Kuhn and others. For instance: "The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other..." This 'fact' is entirely dependent upon our current theory of gravity -- Aristotle, for instance, would not have taken this to be a fact at all, but a falsehood! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people you mentioned are not scientists, but philosophers and mathematicians, and as such are not qualified to make such statements. Furthermore, they lived some time ago, and thus even if they were qualified, their ideas would be out of date. Also - the fact of gravity is NOT dependant on the current theory. I don't know where you got that idea. Farsight001 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only theories; those which are very likely and those which are less likely. The entire basis of this article is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read at least the first paragraph of an article before you criticize it.Quietmarc (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is. Attributed to Jan L.A. Van de Snepscheut, but also often attributed to Yogi Berra. So... if someone said something a long time ago, it must be false (if he's a philosopher anyway, but I thought this article was a philosophical one in the first place.. isn't it???)? Or maybe the old-timey statement could be true but just not as ... stylish maybe?
  • Is there such a thing as a historical fact? "empirical" fact?
  • Is it a "scientific fact" that
  • I dropped a ball from 100 feet this morning, and it accelerated to earth according to X formula; or
  • Whenever one drops a ball from 100 feet, it accelerates to earth according to X formula.
it is not a "scientific fact," it is just a "fact." Slrubenstein | Talk
I really don't know why you think you're making good points. Kuhn has a PhD in physics. So? That's not evolution. In fact, among the sciences, that's about as far from evolution as you can get. Honestly...I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Farsight001 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biologists are experts on things like pandas and bamboo. They are not experts on the philosophy of science. I think when it comes to definitions of theory and fact, we have to rely on the experts, i.e. philosophers of science. Kuhn is widely regarded as one of the most important historians of science in the 20th century and without a doubt his claims about the nature of science and core concepts in science such as theory and fact are significant enough to take notice of. If we would ecpct a philosopher to defer to a biologist on a topic like endocrynology or whatever, biologists should defer to philosophers on their areas of expertise. That said, I think most philosophers would agree with August Compte that "facts" exist in relation to some theory. That there is a relationship does not mean they are the same and philosophers recognize a difference between theory and fact. And I do not think any mainstream philosopher of science questions that "evolution" refers to both a theory and a set of facts. What is the problem? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misconception that this article is about the philosophy of science. It is not. Philosophers have their definition of theory and fact, and scientists have their own. Since this is an article regarding evolution, a science, we are using the scientific definitions, not the philosophical ones.Farsight001 (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...something weird just happened with the edits - the users that certain posts were attributed to seem to have "magically" changed...or am I hallucinating? Farsight001 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem, Far, is that you don't understand "the philosophy of science" and frankly, not even a little bit. Actually, you deny that it exists, or even that it can exist. You won't understand that comment, so don't try.
Quite remarkable to think that the philosophers of science would not even attempt to define what is meant by theory and fact in science, or that all they say is basically claptrap. More remarkable to think that they would spend so much time defining terms like theory or even paradigm or anomaly that have no relation to actual science. SixPurpleFish (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this argment silly, the article is basically about the following:

  • dinosaur bones and other fossils are found in the ground, fact.
  • the older the rocks the simpler the organisms found in them become, fact.
  • dna changes per generation, fact.
  • changes in dna are heritable, fact.
  • some changes are beneficial, fact.
  • enough changes and you get a new species, fact.

By "fact" in this article, we're referring to the physically observed science, which is undisputed fact, scientific or otherwise. How all these facts tie together into a single unified theory of evolution, is the theory. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the older the rocks the simpler the organisms found in them become, fact. That's a fact? Really? It sure sounds like a law. It certainly purports to have predictive power, namely by stating that if you found some even older rocks tomorrow, the organisms would be simpler. So it's certainly a different kind of fact that "John went to the store this morning" which is simply an observation. SixPurpleFish (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to brush up on what scientific laws and scientific facts are. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why when it comes to concepts like fact and theory, we need to be current with philosophes of science, who are trained to use words precisely. To answer an objection above, no I do not think this is an article on philosophy. It is an article on evolution as theory and as fact. NPOV demands we include all relevant significant views from notable sources. We have to include the views of biologists, who are experts on evolution. We have to include the views of philosophers of science, who are experts on scientific theories and facts. If you think otherwise, you are just ignorant as to what philosophers are experts on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source of ambiguity

It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on theory/fact (in the previous section, and perhaps this one as well) may be a misunderstanding of what the article is all about. The only reason this article exists is because of the efforts of creationists to find any method to confuse issues surrounding evolution. One technique involves switching between disputing the facts and the theories of evolution. The first sentence of the article has seven references. Reading them shows that reliable sources have written in exactly the terms addressed by the article. The Gould article is a good first choice.
The recent edit which changed "disputing the validity of evolution" to "disputing the validity of the theory of evolution" has missed the point. Creationists want to deny the fact and the theory (see above Gould article), and they want to take any minor disagreement about a particular theory as an attack on the fact, and any questioning of a particular fact is taken as evidence against the theory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the misunderstanding, if you say creationists are conflating fact and theory? That's exactly the ambiguity I pointed out. Whether creationists don't understand the difference, or willfully ignore it, is kinda beside the point. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Is there something in the article that should be improved? What? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Yes, the second sentence of the article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the explanation given above has not changed your mind from your initial comment, and you don't want to discuss the replies. In that case, all I can do is to refer you to the seven references. Read the first few paragraphs of the Gould article and then say in what way the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is disagreeing with the sources, or suggest some alternative wording. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the Gould article. But I'm beginning to suspect this is more of a terminological dispute than a substantive one. (And therefore, not really an interesting dispute). Creationists, according to the wiki article, conflate "Theory of Evolution" and "Fact of Evolution"; the article says this plays on an ambiguity in the term "evolution", I think the ambiguity is in the term "theory". But I'm not convinced this changes any of what follows in the article. Hairhorn (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article i on the ambiguity in the word "evolution." Discussion of an ambiguity in the word "theory" belongs in a different articl. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed my point, that this article - or at least the second sentence - gets it wrong. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you miss everyone else'spoint - this article is about one particular misunderstanding. You keep bringing up a different misunderstanding. Look, the ketchup article links to "tomato" and to "vinegar." Are you going to go to the article on "tomato" and insist that ketchup has vinegar in it? Yeah, that is correct, but what does it have to do with the article on ketchup? This article is on evolution as (1) theory and (2) fact. Its purpose is to explain what this means. You want to argue some other point, fine, but it is not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not quite it, but the point's been beaten to death already. You yourself point out that there are ambiguities both with "evolution" and "theory" below. Hairhorn (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems: creationists do not understand what scientists mean by "theory," and they do not understant that while scientists talk of the theory about evolution, scientists also consider evolution itself to be a fact. This is an imposrtant distinction in science, between a model of some part of the world, and the observational consequences of propositions derived from that model that can be checked through experiment or observation in nature. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over

time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments.***

OBLIGATION: List at least one example- with references- please. Implicit- you must define "changes". Currently ambiguous - population changes or changes to individuals that constitute the former. The former connotes but does not denote genetic drift or change since it could be merely variations in distributions of a specific variation within a species and not a change in the species itself. The latter generally would be a better example of actual evolution, assuming that the individual organism were truly a representative of the species as a whole changing and not merely a malformed/damanged individual. (Beware the passive voice verb with no subject. 'mistakes were made' etc 'are known to have occurred' :) )Thank you.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.145.194 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution page is what you are looking for I believe, it has examples of speciation on it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I actually agree with Hairhorn to the extent that I think historically people have got into a muddle by using all or any of the three words imprecisely. The opening paragraph seems to be trying to paint a picture in which "evolution is fact" applies to a simple uncontroversial definition of evolution on which everyone can agree, while "evolution is a theory" is reserved for a more complex definition involving mechanisms and things that cannot be directly observed.

I do not doubt that is a possible answer to the conundrum but misleadingly it is not the whole story. In support of this explanation we are told "the fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time". And it is hard to disagree that these changes do occur. So the implication is that those dumb creationists who have been denying evolution is fact have been using the wrong definition of evolution all along.

I'm afraid this explanation simply will not do. "Evolution is a fact" really does mean something more profound than a few observations of changing characteristics in a lab. The creationists get it which is why they are angry. So do Dawkins and Futuyma who later in the article say respectively "evolution is a fact" implies 'we are cousins of bacteria' and that 'organisms have descended from a common ancestor'. Of course 'evolution is fact' at least sometimes means something profound and worth attacking from a creationist point of view. Maybe the author of the opening paragraph did not 'get it'? — Axel147 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45 Cambridge: The MIT Press