To the surprise of many casual observers, and to the embarrassment of many journalistic influences,evolution has never been demonstrated to be a viable explanation for life origins (or cosmic origins for that matter). By definition the scientific method requires that the objects or events under study must be observable, repeatable, and refutable. Evolution certainly cannot be observed or repeated in the field or in the laboratory. With this in mind evolutionist Karl Popper, the honored referee of the modern scientific method pointed out,

"It follows that any controversy over the question whether events which are in principle unrepeatable and unique ever do occur cannot be decided by science; it would be a metaphysical controversy."

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 11, 2001

Answers

The theory of evolution is something people choose to believe. They do not and cannot know that it is true. Real science deals with things that are observable and testable, and neither creation nor evolution are scientifically provable. Both views are religious in nature. Yet, all U. S. (and other countries) taxpayers are forced to pay for the religion of evolution to be promoted in our school system—a clear violation of the First Amendment.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 11, 2001.

IMHO we have misinterpreted AC. AC actually IS an 'athiest', and is using thinly vieled satire of poorly crafted arguments to bash christians. Seriously, just go back (in time) and read AC's post about religion in the christian bible, and you will see his 'point' in a different light. Then return to this post and read it again as well. Could eve = AC?

-- b (B@B.com), May 11, 2001.

b,

I don't know what "AC"'s designs are, but I've never posted under any other handle. Besides, I'm either an agnostic or a deist (depending on various mood swings) -- not an atheist.

I will say this -- the way AC responded on the Biblical "science" thread of his/hers -- what you say about him/her does make some sense.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 11, 2001.

AC--

I think you have a point. Until life can be generated out of inert elements in a lab (and replicated), evolution is only a theory. The risk you run is that someday such a procedure will be achieved. What will you say if that happens?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 11, 2001.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

...

How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?

This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. Geologists can describe past changes in sea level by studying the marks ocean waves left on rocks. Paleontologists study the fossilized remains of organisms that lived long ago.

Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly—such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.

Isn't evolution just an inference?

No one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved. Science is practiced in many ways besides direct observation and experimentation. Much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation and observation in which inferences are made, and hypotheses generated from those inferences are tested.

For instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They must make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon —and that is true about the past, too.

In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past. For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene.

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data, including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

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.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is constant and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs—an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose—to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself."

Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:

Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.

...

-- (got@problem.withthat), May 11, 2001.

Lars:

[Until life can be generated out of inert elements in a lab (and replicated), evolution is only a theory.]

The beginner's essay reproduced above addresses you misconception about scientific theories ("only" a theory, sheesh). But your statement contains a second fundamental error as well.

Evolutionary theory attempts to explain how life *changes*, and says nothing about how life originated. So we could presumably "prove" life started by chance, or was seeded from space, or even was begun by God, and none of these discoveries would speak to evolutionary theory at all. They are not part of it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 2001.

Yes, only a theory as opposed to a fact. What's your problem? I thought evolutionary theory included the origin of the species in the sense that it defines life as something that somehow "evolved" from Sagan's primordial soup.

I have always been comfortable with evolution as being a part of creation. IMO those who would suggest that life on earth came from some other place in the universe don't really say anything---where did that life come from?

I once struggled through Hawking"s Brief History of Time and, unless I missed it, the great cosmologist had absolutely nothing to say on the origin of life. Seemed odd to me.

Hey, I don't really give a shit. Que sera sera.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 11, 2001.

Lars:

[Yes, only a theory as opposed to a fact.]

You must have skipped your homework (grin). As that essay makes very clear, facts are the raw data, and theories are explanations for those facts. An explanation can never a be a fact nor vice versa, these are different orders of things. A scientific theory is in absolutely no sense an "uncertain fact". Facts are the raindrops and theory explains *why* it rains. The theory will never be a fact, and will never get you wet.

[I thought evolutionary theory included the origin of the species in the sense that it defines life as something that somehow "evolved" from Sagan's primordial soup.]

Not quite. Origin of species does NOT mean origin of life. Evolutionary theory explains how one form of life can change into another. It simply does not address how the very first life came into existence, but only concerns itself what what has happened since, and how.

We have some hypotheses as to how life may have first appeared, but so far no good evidence one way or another.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 2001.

Eve,

Sorry for the misatribution, and thanks for clearing that up. I always enjoy your philosophical posts. You were the first person who came to mind with the devilish talents to post as an atheist the arguements of a christian, and to defend the arguments in the best know-nothing style possible - always losing the debate at the last due to some oversight or misundertanding. Consider that the original mispelling of the tag could have been intentional satire.

-- B (b@B.com), May 11, 2001.