From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame Lines: 54 In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: |> In article , adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes: |> |> >Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact. It is exactly |> >the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of |> >gravity. If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact, |> >then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact. |> > |> >-- |> >--Andy |> |> I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either. They are extremely useful |> mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make. |> Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model. Gravity, too, is |> very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we |> have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on |> objects by this thing we _call_ gravity. Gravity, however, is _not_ |> a fact. It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects |> behave in our physical environment. Newton thought gravity was a |> simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that |> have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you |> want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly |> the way the theory now formulated talks about it. That takes a great |> leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes. Evolution |> is no different. |> |> -- |> jim halat halat@bear.com |> bear-stearns --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you-- |> nyc i speak only for myself What do you accept as a fact -- the roundness of the earth (after all, the ancient Greeks thought it was a sphere, and then Newton said it was a spheroid, and now people say it's a geoid [?])? yourself (isn't your personal identity just a theoretical construct to make sense of memories, feelings, perceptions)? I'm trying to think of anything that would be a fact for you. Give some examples, and let's see how factual they are by your criteria (BTW, what are your criteria?). "Gravity is _not_ a fact": is that a fact? How about Newton's and Einstein's thoughts about gravity -- is it a fact that they had those thoughts? I don't see how any of the things that you are asserting are any more factual than things like gravity, atoms or evolution. In short, before I am willing to consider your concept of what a fact is, I'm going to have to have, as a minimum, some examples of what you think are facts. -- Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA