Re: Fact of Evolution (posted for R. Aurisano)

From
Date
Reply-To
From: rwaurisano@amoco.com
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 11:08:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Fact of Evolution
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: mcghee@rci.rutgers.edu, owner-paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Status: O

     Hi George -

     Long time no see.  Do you remember me?  Tony Charletta and I shared an
     office at Rutgers when we were doing our doctoral studies.  Just
     wanted to say that I share your view.  The why? is the theory part and
     scientists with a faith system as part of their internal makeup seek
     as best as they can, to rationalize these empirical observations with
     their faith/beliefs.  It is a part of being human.  It is a part of
     reconciling our spiritual being with the physical world.  Being a good
     scientist and believing in a supreme being is not necessarily
     contradictory.  But I think I may be straying from the original topic
     which was the disclaimer placed inside biology textbooks in use in
     Alabama.  I cannot rationalize the need for a disclaimer at all.  If
     we do this then we might as well say that all knowledge may be bad for
     our health.  Why stop with the biology texts?  Why not put it in the
     math texts, history, religion texts, and on and on.

     Hope you are doing well, I sure would like to visit Rutgers some day.
     Maybe I can swing it during my visit to New York this Christmas.

     Cheers,

     Rick Aurisano


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Fact of Evolution
Author:  owner-paleonet at unix,mime/dd.RFC-822=owner-paleonet\@nhm\.ac\.uk
Date:    11/16/95 11:14 AM


Since it is clear that many average citizens do not understand the
differences between hypotheses and theories, belief systems and science,
why not simply short-circuit the problem and teach evolution as FACT.
If you can see it, most people accept it as fact.  We do not refer to
"the theory that the Earth is a globe", we teach it as fact.  One that can
be empirically observed.  Now, WHY the Earth has the shape it has leads to
theory.

Thus I would say this: "Evolution is a fact.  It is an empirical observation".
I would then invite anyone to visit the lab of any working population
geneticist to observe evolution (change in gene frequencies with time,
which IS evolution).  I would invite anyone to visit the lab of any working
paleontologist to observe evolution.  It is a fact that 3.5 Ga ago only
monerans were present on the Earth, it is a fact that most all dinosaurs
died out 65 Ma ago, etc.  And I would invite anyone to visit any good
medical school to observe our current dilemma with bacteria, which
continually evolve resistence to our antibiotics.

Evolution is a fact, an empirical observation.  WHY does life evolve?  Now
, and now only (in my view), to we enter the realm of theory.  The most
widely accepted theory as to why life evolves is the Theory of Natural
Selection, but that is not the only theory.  The phrase "the theory of
evolution" causes enormous confusion to the general public -- in 90% of
cases what is meant is "the theory of natural selection".  Let us say so!
Replace the reporter's headlines of "scientists debate theory of evolution"
with "scientists debate theory of natural selection", or neutralism, or
whatever.

Sorry to digress on a pet peeve, but words are really powerful.  We
should consider their impact as well as their meaning.

George McGhee