the fact of the theory in article c u p nx usenet ucs indiana edu adpeters sunflower bio indiana edu andy peters writes stuff deleted andy i think we do agree given your clarification of how we were each using the terms fact and theory i ll only add that i think perhaps i feel more strongly about separating them though your usage is quite valid note that the fact of evolution is still a theory in other words it could theoretically still be falsified and rejected but since it s so predictive and so consistently supported by evidence it seems pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore i ll add here that any falsification or rejection does not in any way reduce its current usefulness so long as it accurately predicts or describes things we can observe not to be a pain in the ass but is there any reason you don t just say the theory of evolution rather than the fact of evolution is still a theory i m asking because this whole thread got started because i was bothered by a post that referred to the fact of evolution basically leaving off the phrase is still a theory without a clarification like the one you just gave just saying the fact of evolution has a very different meaning to me description of atomic theory and alternative theories of gravity deleted 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 here is where you fail to make an important distinction you have shoehorned the facts of the existence of gravity and atoms and evolution into one category with the theories which have been proposed to explain the mechanisms the existence of these things is so predictive as to be considered fact the mechanisms on the other hand are still worth discussing i m not sure i agree here again it may be because i feel stronger about separating terms i was trying to say that the theories proposed to explain the mechanisms and the mechanisms themselves are the only realities here it is the existence of mechanisms not the things themselves that are so predictive as to be considered fact as you would say there aren t really little planetary particle systems called atoms out there or i should say and more to my original point it would be a leap of faith to say there are because we observe only the mechanisms there is no need to believe there are actually atoms out there as we have decided to think about them it s enough to discuss the mechanisms at any rate i m not sure i am being any clearer than before but i thought it was worth a shot the bottom line though is i think we agree on two fundamental ideas evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence my way the fact of evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence your way creation is just an opinion if a theist wants to call it a theory then he can i won t it has no supporting evidence and it neither predicts nor supports any observations that can be made with no mechanisms to talk about there really isn t much to say do you agree jim halat halat bear com bear stearns whatever doesn t kill you will only serve to annoy you nyc i speak only for myself
