Talk:Evolution as fact and theory

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.

Comparing evolution to gravity

While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory [1]. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.

There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity[2], but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.

Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place"[3] and "Examples of N-D Es include clarification of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)"[4], but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book [5] If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.

I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also [6] for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of a flaw in this section: "Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein developed models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity." Which is it, a model or a theory? I've read about Newton's laws on gravitation and Einstein's theories and within those frameworks they have presented various mathematical models. The more you go down this rabbit hole, the more the issue will get complicated. The story of gravitational theory is not so simply compared to the story of evolutionary theory. Unless presented in its proper form this could lead to greater confusion than understanding. Theories have histories attached to them and there is no singular prescript to the way that science is performed. It does not work with scientists sitting down and saying "Hmm...let's see I have, step 1. a hypothesis, step 2. let's build a theory, step 3. construct a model, step 4. design an experiment, step 5. test our assumptions, and step 6. demonstrate to others that I followed steps 1-5 in accordance to the prescripts of science." That's not the way it works.Thompsma (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the key points in the history and progress of science is the shift away from dogma toward the dialectic of theoretical pluralism so that ideas are continually challenged and progress is made beyond the threshold of current knowledge. Putting the theory of gravity on the same plane as the theory of evolution (more correctly stated as a theory of selection, but that's a secondary point) is problematic from the very nature of science. Notable scholars on the philosophy of science have written extensively about the nuances of theory, such as Popper's demarcation of pseudoscience from science through falsification, because all scientific theories have their own histories within an "ocean of anomalies"[7].Thompsma (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are no doubt aware that it is possible to erect arguments that cast doubt on anything from simple facts like what "two" means up to whether any historical assertion (or in general, any assertion at all) can be known as true. So by the time we come to what "fact" and "theory" mean of course an enormous amount of doubt can be spread around. This article is not the place for that: to do so would be to mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Johnuniq and this is not the place for original research. My point is that the very issue is complex enough to write about even from someone who is fairly well appraised on the theory of it. However, it is even more difficult to write on this when there isn't any substantive literature that makes the kind of comparison that is being made in the article. As I stated above - I clicked on each one of the citation links and searched for gravity. Only one link made a kind of comparison that is similar to what is given in this article, but even that was given as a quoted exchange between a teacher and student. Our responsibility is to report on the literature on this topic, not to design an anti-attack campaign for evolution against creationists. If there is literature out there that does make a compelling case comparing the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity that I have missed, then I would be very interested to to see that literature. However, it remains elusive despite my earnest efforts to read through this stuff. I would rather report on what the evolutionary biologists and educators are saying about evolution as theory and fact, not what people think makes a great comparison between gravity and evolution because it can thwart creationists.Thompsma (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind things like WP:PARITY which indicate that it is not necessary to use scholarly sources when discussing a fringe theory such as "evolution is only a theory". As well as not necessary, I am saying it would be unhelpful—not because I want a great anti-attack page, but because the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this citation [8] - I'll work with this. The key points I made were: 1. the paragraph in the article cites Gregory who does not say what is written in that paragraph, and 2. there is no other citation contained in the reference section that says what is said in that paragraph. "the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic" - I'll have to think about that one for a bit, because here I was aiming to write a confusing article to bore the interested reader. I'm going to stop posting ideas in here and just work in my sandbox to write the articles and then post them. I can write a much more effective paragraph including the comparison to gravity while also using reliable source material.Thompsma (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma. In what way weren't these satisfactory?[9] The National Academy of Sciences apparently found the theory of gravity to be a worthy comparison-and given its wide use elsewhere as well, the point might be to find a more compelling argument against using it here too. Professor marginalia (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Professor marginalia - I'll take those citations into consideration as well. Note: 1. None of those citations appear in the article and many would be a better substitute than the Gregory reference for the gravity comparison paragraph, 2. I specifically stated that I could not locate any citation amongst those that are reference in the article that discuss the gravity v. evolution issue in the manner it is discussed, 3. on page 49 on the book linked by the NAS you will notice that the book states the following: "Isn't belief in evolution also a matter of faith? Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief" (see here [10] also) - and that section precedes the issue of gravity, which is essentially the strategy I've been trying to argue in favour of, and 3. each one of those citations give multiple theory comparisons beyond gravity, giving a much broader and more "resilient" perspective on the matter. Once again, I am not opposed to the gravity comparison. I am advocating for incorporating information and discussing the topic in a manner that is germane and consistent with the literature at large - including the links to the literature that you kindly supplied - and not narrowly focusing on one comparison that can create other problems; arguably, prime attention to gravity at the expense of avoiding other topical issues addressed in the very literature you have cited is not representative of a NPOV.Thompsma (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)."[11]). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes[12] the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms.Thompsma (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Redefines Wikipedia's own definition of "Theory" and "Fact"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page suffers multiple fatal isues:

1. does not agree with accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact", including Wikipedia's;
2. seeks to add to, and thereby modify, accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact" to support its own arguements - a technique of propaganda;
3. contradicts a fundamental point of scientific use of the word "Theory" - namely, to encourage other theories, however whacky, to be put and heard and tested against scientific rigour.

The hidden agenda of this page is to debunk "Creationists", by denying the possibility of other theories of the origin of the human species than "Evolution", particularly ones that involve alien infuences (or indeed, "god"). Evolution, it claims, is "fact", whereas it is no such thing, even in the context of the word "fact" in this page. Even Darwin later modified his own theory. To call Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species a "fact" is a gross and wilful misrepresentation of the scientific method. The scientific method deplores the arrogance of asserting any theory as facts, but instead allows for the acceptance of the most credible theory at the time. This permits alternative theories to be entertained even 100's of years later - for example, the theory of quantum mechanics vs Newtonian physics.

The page should be deleted. However, I invite others, particularly supporters of this action, to comment before commencing a third reccomendation. Abunyip (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is not a "hidden" agenda. It is an open policy (WP:Due weight) and a guideline (WP:FRINGE). We do not put undue weight or validity on things that do not deserve them.

The page's agenda - debunking Creationism - that we are obviously in furious agreement upon, is hidden on the page. Abunyip (talk)

The ironic thing about it is creatonists are doing the things you accuse this page of. This article explains quite clearly how scientific theories are dynamic, and how "Darwinian evolution" is now inaccurate, but whose base concept is still valid in the modern theories of evolution. Similar to how Newtonian gravity has been replaced with relativity and quantum mechanics, but whose concepts are still applicable.

What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere does not vindicate false reasoning and propaganda on this page. BTW, quantum mechanics has not replaced Newtonian physics. Both Theories coexist in their particular Order of Magnitude contexts. Abunyip (talk)

On the other hand, creationism is not. They won't even change a single "fact" in their Bible even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Their "theory" is the same theory that some bored goatherders in a desert once wrote. You are deluding yourself by even placing them on the same level. It's creationists in fact, who keep confusing "Darwinism" with modern evolution.

What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere does not vindicate false reasoning and propaganda on this page. Abunyip (talk)

Creationism will be given a voice here, the day they do what you think they should do: test their theories. No one prohibits them, but they actively refuse to do this. Why do you think this is? You can't expect us to accept their "Theories" with zero scientific support, evidence, or even a peer-reviewed framework can you?

What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere ...(etc)... Abunyip (talk)

And Panspermia is treated quite decently. It's fringe science, and perfectly acceptable and testable, unlike creationism which is pseudoscience and completely unfalsifiable (i.e. there is no way to prove or disprove it and thus it is not science). If you have a problem with honesty, I suggest you go to Conservapedia instead.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact (pun intended), you are seriously in error. It was Popper himself who acknowledged Darwin's theory was, by definition, pseudoscience because it was "unfalsifiable". So QED, you prove my point. But I dont actually "have a problem" with that. I "have a problem" with the devices and techniques of propaganda operating on this page, to wit: The page, 1. does not agree with accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact", including Wikipedia's; 2. seeks to add to, and thereby modify, accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact" to support its own arguements - a technique of propaganda; 3. contradicts a fundamental point of scientific use of the word "Theory" - namely, to encourage other theories, however whacky and including Creationism, to be put and heard and tested against scientific rigour. As a Reference, Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for debunking theories, it should simply explain them. This page seeks to discredit Creationism, and is both unscientific and political. It therefore meets criteria for deletion as it fails the test of Neutrality, and of Vandalism due to its only existing to disparage the (hidden) subject of Creationism, and achieves it with circular reasoning and false logic that is ultimately patent nonsense. Abunyip (talk)

I envy your enthusiasm to improve the article. Evidently it's in really bad shape if this is the kind of nonsense its readers conclude after reading it. The article isn't meant to be about creationism; it is meant to explain science. Where there are overlaps, they should be limited to those instances where creationists misrepresent what the terms really mean in science. Otherwise, creationism is off topic here. This article should clarify what scientific terms mean in science, and not confuse them further with false equivalence to what creationists think they should mean in science. The opposite of propaganda, in other words. Professor marginalia (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really curious to see where Popper actually wrote that Darwin's theory of natural selection is pseudoscience. Even so, it is just his view - mainstream philosophy of science reject Popper's notion of "falsifiability" as a necessary universal feature of scientific theories. Thoompsma is right that there are many different theories the value and usefulness of which depend on different criteria. That said, I still think the theory of gravity analogy is useful because the point is not to compare theories of evolutionary biology to theories of gravity, but to make a point about the different ways the general people view the theory of gravity and Darwin's theory of natural selection and more recent theories concerning the evolution of species. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Poppers blooper is here Karl Popper on Darwinism Abunyip (talk)

No blooper - he dosn't say evolution is pseudoscience. He says that it is a metaphysical framework for generating testable scientific theories, which is pretty much what Thompsma is saying. Today the more common term for such a framework is "paradigm" and the modern synthesis certainly is a paradigm that produces many testable theories. It is certainly not pseudoscience and Popper does not call it pseudoscience. As Popper states, this kind of framework is logically necessary in science. Can't you read?Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can close this thread. The talk page is for discussion for improvement of the page, and Abunyip's suggestions are just misinformed and garbled. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Popper did say that, it's simply not true. Find a U.maritimus fossil dated to the Cambrian era and evo is falsified on the spot. Concurring with Slrubenstien and hatting the thread. If specific changes to the article are in mind please open a new section and don't forget sourcing for any claims made. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

inductive/deductive

The actual testing of a hypothesis, in scientific theories, is inductive not deductive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Here is a list of definitions from Fitzhugh (2005)[13]:

• abduction: inference of an explanatory hypothesis accounting for observed effects;
• deduction: inference of predicted test consequences that should be observed, if the hypothesis is true;
• induction: hypothesis testing, i.e., observing whether or not predicted consequences are the case.

Here is how Rieppel defines these terms:

"As explained below, deduction draws out the conclusion that is logically entailed in the premises: it is about what necessarily must be the case. Induction concludes from observation to a generalization: if all the swans I have ever seen were white, I might conclude that ‘all swans are white’. Inductive generalizations are not necessarily true, but only probable, and may be wrong, as when black swans are discovered in Austalia. Abduction is a form of argument that seeks a causal explanation of the data: if in the morning a piece of cheese left on the kitchen table shows carvings of little rodent teeth, and there are small droppings on the floor, the most likely explanation of those observations is that there must be a mouse hidden somewhere. An abductive inference again is only probable and can be wrong: it could have been the hamster from the little girl next door that had escaped and made his home in the neighbor’s kitchen, but that explanation appears (intuitively in this example) less parsimonious."[14]

I suspect that you are referring to the following recent text:

"Scientific theories also contain speculation (abduction) at first but they are designed to be testable (deductive) and to develop heuristically (inductively) over time or through axillary claims, but the most important point is that they can be rejected by a critical test."

Abduction is synonymous to inference to the best explanation as it is used in some literature (e.g., [15]). The sentence talks about "designed to be testable", which is what deduction is "inference of predicted test consequences" - it is the syllogism of statements making a claim on the predicted outcome of observed effect in light of a critical experiment. The design is where hypotheses are made in the inference. The induction part "to develop heuristically (inductively) over time" is in reference to the battery of tests. Perhaps the wording is not so great, but that is the line of thinking I had when putting that together. Perhaps you will have some input that could help in this context? Is this the place where your comment was directed?Thompsma (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Evolution is both fact and theory" - Nope not all scientists agree

I once changed the opening sentence to this article as Evolution as fact and theory, which is correct. That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect and the experts in this field have published exactly this claim (namely Walter Bock[16] and Kirk Fitzhugh[17]). In several peer-reviewed publications - they have been quite explicit in stating that evolution is not a fact and it is not a theory either. Hence, I do not understand why there are editors that are trying to make claims that contradict the very nature of science itself. This relates back to a statement I made earlier: "We have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed."

"A single evolutionary theory as considered by Darwin does not exist, but several evolutionary theories occur with clear distinctions made between nomological and historical evolutionary theories, the latter being separated into a general and numerous special theories....If understood correctly, both nomological and historical evolution stand on their own as strongly corroborated scientific theories. Neither have to be further embellished as a fact or as true."[18] He even makes it more explicit: "If understood correctly, both forms of evolutionary theories stand on their own as corroborated scientific theories and should not be labeled as facts." Once you understand what theory is, it is truly an absurd notion to claim theory to be a fact as well. Evolutionary theory actually refers to many theories, whereas you might be able to interpret it as a fact if it is refers to the subject that hypotheses are trying to explain. If you study DNA, the facts are the DNA sequences themselves. If I build a phylogenetic tree out of those DNA sequences, does it now become a fact that they evolved according to the phylogeny inferred? No. The phylogeny itself is an explanatory hypothesis of the facts as they relate to each other. "Confirming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact...To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions."[19]

The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy[20]] may be helpful in this regard. On facts:

• It is a fact life evolves
• That life evolves is a fact
• That 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.

This first two sentences are of the contingent sort, the last sentence is another kind of fact. In this first sense, the contingent nature of facts, evolution is a fact. However, what meaning does this really state? The key is in the term "evolve", which is why these kinds of statements, while they appear to help us to understand the claims, are really not helpful in explaining anything of importance. If life evolves, then this means that there is "decent with modification", but who is evolving? Life is evolving. Hence, the fact refers to many different kinds of creatures where we find facts. So are facts nested sets, such that "It is a fact that birds have wings, that birds have wings is a fact" and "It is a fact that birds evolve, that birds evolve is a fact"? In this way, fact is an inexact reference to the nesting of the systems involved. Wings are objects than can be observed (the worlds data independent of theory), but when we talk about bird evolution we are really referring to the hypotheses that explain the facts (wings, feathers, DNA, Archaeopteryx, etc..). In referring to the explanatory hypotheses as a fact, we are doing a disservice to the facts and hypotheses, because hypotheses can never achieve absolute certainty and neither can facts, but why add duplicity to a hypotheses by stating it a fact as well? Facts are supposed to exist regardless of our perception of them, they just are and as such they lack the theory-laden components that we are trying to test in the first place. We're not in the practice of testing the facts, they are already accepted as clearly as a bird has a wing. Who in their right mind would set out to test that kind of hypothesis? Referring to theories or hypotheses as facts kills the entire purpose and philosophy of science as a perpetual machine of inquiry. Hence, evolution is not a fact - but a collection of many facts that are explained by the theories and hypotheses within.

Hence, I would like to change the lead sentence and actually a lot about this article to correctly align with the scientific philosophy on this matter as an encyclopaedic resource and to do away with this creationist shield nonsense that is going on in here. It is complete nonsense to turn the science into something you want it to be as a counter claim against the creationists. If you are doing this, you are falling into their trap and and spreading misinformation about the actual practice of science. I'd like to remind editors that quote mining is one of the favourite tactics of creationists, which is exactly the strategy employed herein. I'd like to delete those quotes and turn this into a real article without being labelled a creationists POV pusher by a few ignorant punks.Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to write about your opinions on the "philosophy of science" elsewhere. Us ignorant punks are not as stupid as you imply. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The "ignorant punk" label wasn't directed at you ArtifexMayhem - it was directed at a user that was banned and a few users that coaxed that user on. The papers I cite above are written by evolutionary biologists who have published on the topic of evolution as fact and theory and they are the premier experts in this field on "Evolution as fact and theory". This article is about fact and theory, which is not separate but directly in line with the philosophy of science, so I have no idea why you would be directing me elsewhere. Putting a page together that spreads misinformation, but is designed to appease people's fears about creationists goes against the very principles of Wikipedia. I am quite well informed on the topic and I am not writing about "my opinions" but on the WP:V material that by definition is not my opinion. Hence, you can feel free to post your opinions elsewhere, which is what you posted, and I will stick to the facts that relate to the topic of discussion.Thompsma (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take a moment to clear your prejudice and re-read my post above. I ask the same of other editors. I realize that this is a difficult issue for readers to contend with, theory is a complex topic. I realize that many of you are afraid to consider statements that seem to run contrary to the notion of evolution as a fact. Let me be absolutely clear - I agree with 1) evolution explains a great many factual causal relations in nature, and 2) ‘descent with modification’ has withstood repeated attempts of refutation by way of testing. I can make those claims and still maintain that evolution is neither a fact nor is it a theory, as have other published evolutionary biologists. There is one component to evolutionary theory that may be claimed to be a fact - the historical narrative which is a theory on 'decent with modification', which differs from the other four nomological-deductive theories that many evolutionary biologists have noted (see Mayr[21]) in Darwin's thesis. However, even calling the historical narrative of evolution as a fact is a very odd kind of fact. It is a fact in the sense that it refers to the subject of reference in the explanatory hypotheses, but in reality it is a bunch of facts that are explained by many independent evolutionary theories that have been tested and corroborated. No matter how much you test those theories, they do not become facts - that is unless the history of science has mutated into something beyond its historical frame. I do not dispute that this stuff is still being debated in the literature, but from the Wikipedia:Five_pillars I am adhering closely to the WP:NPOV principle in good faith.Thompsma (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The claim that something is "philosophically incorrect" and the examples from the encyclopedia of philosophy are only invitations for original research. We do not put our own views into the article, or our own arguments nor do we use our own arguments to decide on content. All that matters is whether there are reliable sources that state that evolution is a fact. If so, we include that view. If there are other reliable sources that say it is not a fact, we include that view too. But the only question is, what are the significant views found in reliable sources? If they contradict our own reasoning, we still put them in. If they contradict other significant views in reliable sources, we put both (or all) views in. The only basis for resolving this dispute is to provide sources saying evolution is or is not a fact. No other explanation is relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your post Slrubenstein. Here is one source that makes this claim: "To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions."[22] I want to make absolutely clear that I am not advocating for this claim, in fact I disagree with it and think that evolution is a historical fact - but that is not what is relevant here. I tried above to relay an effective explanation of the counter-factual argument as best as I understood it so that others might come to an understanding as well. What I think is relevant, however, is that the first statement in this article: "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not representative of the literature, where "Evolution as fact and theory" - the very title of this page, is more representative of the discourse on this topic. The former I believe stems from a scientific prejudice toward creationism, whereas the later speaks more to the open inquiry on the nature of this problem. This article should not be a prejudiced creation in an attempt to counter creationist arguments, but a factual representation of "Evolution as fact and theory" as it exists in the literature. In that line, the philosophy of fact and theory as it relates to the science should be represented without prejudice. I would like to alter the lead sentence to:

Evolution as fact and theory is a statement (or variant thereof) that appears in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed in discourse on the fundamental nature of scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. It also occurs in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".

Comments?Thompsma (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Thompsma, I was taken aback by your original post under this "nope" heading, and your opening sentences "That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect ..." appeared to be obvious POV-pushing. You've now explained yourself much more clearly. If I might make a suggestion here, I would strikeout that part, and rephrase it. Also, Evolution as fact and theory works fine as an article title, but this is by itself not a "statement" or sentence.

You are absolutely correct that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not a "true" statement, but that's not what the article says. Instead it says that this statement "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," and then goes on to explain why the statement is made in these publications.

I think we may all be agreed that scientists have observed that life forms have evolved through the past, and continue to do so; that evolution is a demonstrable and demonstrably natural phenomenon. It seems to me that while scientists and philosophers of science do have real and substantive disagreements amongst themselves about the nature of evolution and its mechanisms of operation, the more basic problem is semantic, involving how "fact", "theory", and indeed "evolution" should best be defined as terms of art. And it is these definitional problems that are seized upon by deniers of evolution in "claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory"." I think this is what the article is about, and should be brought to the fore. In fact, in my reading of it, I think the article addresses these semantic problems pretty well. My concern is more with the section (and subsections) Evolution as theory and fact in the literature, where I think it would be useful to re-emphasize that these distinctions are primarily - but not exclusively - semantic rather than substantive. It might also be useful to add a third subsection to accommodate Fitzhugh, who argues that in his understanding, "evolution" should not be considered to be a "fact". Milkunderwood (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to add the sentence, "According to some (or many), evolution is a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." But I am pretty sure there are also reliable sources that say evolution is a fact. In philosophy and sociology of science, "fact" can mean different things. We just have to be sure to represent (and explain) all the major views. We have to decide on how to give them due weight, but we don't have to decide on what is right or wrong. I think we are making progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In actuality - that "Evolution is both fact and theory "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," - is also a false statement (e.g., [23]). I realize that is google scholar, but that statement does not appear in "numerous" publications (also, see here[24]). I agree that the semantics in relation to the terms of art is an important issue that needs to be addressed and as you state the article does this pretty well, but could use some improvement. There are lots of published scientific works stating that evolution is a historical fact. The following quotes illustrate where I think that the semantics comes into play on fact:

1. "Confirming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact" (Fitzhugh)[25]
2. "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould)[26]
3. " US National Academy of Science (NAS) (1998), one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world, a scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed, and for all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true’."(Gregory)[27]

It seems to me that Fitzhugh has a different notion of fact, which is not at all surprising when you visit the philosophical work dealing with what a fact is. The surprising thing about the NAS definition is the 'observation' component. We can observe instances of evolution, but we cannot observe all instances of evolution. Hence, there are some factual instances, but not all cases can be observed that may exclude them from the domain of fact. Can facts in one instance transcend to related matters? There is a whole world of thought on what facts are and what they entail. Hence, adding a conditional statement - this is what X author thinks a fact is and according to those terms, evolution is seen as a fact. However, Fitzhugh has defined fact in a different way and prefers instead to strictly separate fact from theory or hypothesis and according to these terms, evolution is not seen as a fact, but a system of reference to many facts.Thompsma (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are manipulating the search to look for articles that state "Evolution is both fact and theory." The proper method would be to search for sources that say "evolution is a fact" and to search for sources that say "evolution is a theory." The question is whether one can find many examples of both claims in the literature. It does not depend on one source having the verbatim quote "evolution is fact and theory" in it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:

• With regard to "that "Evolution is both fact and theory "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," - is also a false statement": I wondered about that, but chose not to question it. On the other hand, if "it does not depend on one source having the verbatim quote "evolution is fact and theory" in it", then perhaps the wording should be clarified.
• With regard to "According to some (or many), evolution is a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions", I think we might be running into yet another semantic problem, something to the effect of "is an overarching theory that includes a set of hypotheses" (some complementary and others conflicting). I'm not at all sure about the "set of theories" formulation.

Milkunderwood (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not manipulate the search - I was explicit and disclosed the exact nature of it. Manipulation would imply that I was doing something untoward, but I gave an honest and full disclosure of the search. Even if it is not verbatim, the article itself leads to numerous publications stating that evolution is not a theory. Hence, that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not numerously reported. It is true that "Evolution is a fact, not a theory appears in numerous publications on biological evolution, but not all", that is without the verbatim qualifier. In response to - "is an overarching theory that includes a set of hypotheses", while I see how you are attempting to accommodate the diversity of views on this, that is not how it has been framed. The most popular view I have seen repeated is Mayr's break down of Darwin's thesis into five separate theories, one that is a historical inference, four are nomological-deductive, none are "overarching". How about going back to the very early arrangement of this article and rethinking our approach:

Evolution is often identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution. Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".

Suggestions?Thompsma (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of responding to your question, let me just throw this fairly long quotation into the mix, taken from the same website I pointed to earlier:

• http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/intelligent_design_or_no_model_creationism -

Ronald H. Pine, Ph. D., is a Research Associate at the Field Museum, Chicago, and Permanent Visiting Scholar, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas.

I need to repeat that I'm coming to this discussion unschooled; the following description is simply pretty much the way I have long understood the issue, and I was gratified to find this summary that so closely reinforced my own thoughts. Possibly Pine might be cited as an additional reference if his essay is thought to be relevant:

"The word "hypothesis" should be used, in science, exclusively for a reasoned, sensible, knowledge-informed explanation for why some phenomenon exists or occurs. An hypothesis can be as yet untested; can have already been tested; may have been falsified; may have not yet been falsified, although tested; or may have been tested in a myriad of ways countless times without being falsified; and it may come to be universally accepted by the scientific community. An understanding of the word "hypothesis," as used in science, requires a grasp of the principles underlying Occam’s Razor and Karl Popper’s thought in regard to "falsifiability"—including the notion that any respectable scientific hypothesis must, in principle, be "capable of" being proven wrong (if it should, in fact, just happen to be wrong), but none can ever be proved to be true. One aspect of a proper understanding of the word "hypothesis," as used in science, is that only a vanishingly small percentage of hypotheses could ever potentially become a theory.

"Most people tend to think of the word "theory" as meaning pretty much the same thing as their concept of "hypothesis"—namely, a guess or surmise. A "theory" is thought of as a very tentative proposition. This is only natural, because that is the "ordinary English" meaning of the word outside of scientific contexts, and our citizens’ educational experiences have rarely done anything to disabuse them of this notion. As I define "scientific theory," it is a great, overarching, explanatory scheme which explains a vast number of phenomena; which makes connections between phenomena that would otherwise be perceived as having nothing to do with each other; which makes wild, off-the-wall predictions which nonetheless turn out as forecast; which is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence and has been tested countless times in countless ways without being falsified; shows consilience to a truly remarkable extent; and which is, for all practical purposes, universally accepted by the scientific community. A scientific theory has content, in spades. By this definition (and powerful arguments can be made against any other) there are only about a dozen scientific theories that I can think of right off the bat, and no scientific theories have ever existed which are not currently accepted. Examples would be the modern atomic theory, theory of plate tectonics, Einstein’s theories of relativity, the microbe theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, the modern synthetic theory of evolution, the gene/chromosome/DNA/RNA theory of inheritance/protein synthesis."

Note his phrasing: the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Would this then be interpreted as a "set of theories", as Mayr appears to describe? I don't have the background to be able to put these two paragraphs in the context of the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting Milkunderwood - it is a nice paragraph and well written. The modern synthetic theory of evolution is otherwise known as the modern synthesis. It was the marriage between Mendelian genetic heredity, population genetics, and the quantifiable aspects that were found to be consistent with and explained Darwin's theory of natural selection in a new light. Once the two were found to be consistent, this stimulated much discussion and consolidation on the mechanisms from a genetic level. This came to be known as the modern syntheses, largely developed by Sewall Wright, John Haldane, and Robert Fisher. Some have suggested that the modern syntheses also developed through ties to developmental biology and importantly to paleontology. Hence, here again, we have a smart evolutionary biologist recognizing that evolution is not a singular theory.Thompsma (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - do you have any comments on the proposed changes I suggested above? I'd like to hear your insight.Thompsma (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposal probably needs to be changed around so that the first sentence matches the title of the article:

Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In the debates that ensure, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution.

Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some nits to pick: "In the debates that ensue..." and "These semantic issues have led to confusion..."

Here is the result of some mostly minor wordsmithing:

Evolution as fact and theory is a frame often found in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse. Healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution is sometimes framed as controversy that casts doubt on the modern evolutionary synthesis.

That last sentence may be excessive for the lead's first paragraph. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JPB for catching those typos and I like your recommendations. Glad that you deleted the last sentence, because I have doubts about the MES myself - tend to take a more Gouldian understanding of evolution through the interaction of complex hierarchies. However, I think the first part "is a frame" - needs to be changed. Perhaps: "Evolution as fact and theory is a subject that is debated regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms..."Thompsma (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Perhaps something like this could work:

Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. ...

I am still not completely comfortable with "identified as either fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither." Cutting out "either" might help that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - here is what we have:

Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.

Any objections to this change??Thompsma (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No objections to most of it - but I kind of like "either." If we get rid of it we need a word that has a similar function. The point is, it is not so much that many people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The issue - as I understand it - is that in some contexts people claim evolution is a fact. In other contexts they claim evolution is a theory. I believe that when they do this, they mean different things by evolution. So some people believe that the speciation of the hawthorn fly is a fact, or even that descent of all living things from a comon ancestor is a fact, and when they say evolution is a fact they are referring to these things. Some people think that the theory of speciation through natural selection is a theory and they call this the theory of evolution. As often the case, there are many people who do not hold with these claims. We are not saying that evolution is a fact and is a theory, we are saying that some significant views hold that evolution is a fact, and some significant views hold that it is a theory. These are not mutually exclusive, the word "evolution" refers to many things to some people. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about somewhat like this, then:

"identified as either fact or theory (occasionally both or neither.)"

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll insert it and if anyone has problems with the details, we can sort that out later.Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on fact

I thought I would add this quote from the citation that Fitzhugh (2007)[28] uses to define fact. Fitzhugh makes the claim that that evolution is not a fact and this quote clarifies what he means by this:

Therefore, we should not call a true factual proposition a 'fact'. (The view that facts are theory-dependent or else empirical data rather than thigs "out there" is rampant in the philosophy of biology...In other words, a well-confirmed hypothesis, such as the hypothesis of descent with modification, is not a fact: it refers to a fact, i.e., a process or, more precisely, a number of processes. Similarly, there are no "scientific facts": only a procedure to attain knowledge can be scientific (or not), not the object of our investigation. Accordingly, scientists neither "collect" facts nor do they come up with or, worse, "construct" facts, but advance hypotheses and theories referring to or respresenting facts. Of course, some of these hypotheses may turn out ot be false, either for referring to purely imaginary objects, or for describing incorrecly realy facts.

Hence, I made some adjustments to the section on fact in light of this wp:v material.Thompsma (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Phantom Citations

I have been advised that "creationist baloney" and not knowing "what evolution actually is" are grounds for moderation here at Wikipedia. I do not want to violate any policies. So let me go ahead and provide a list of suggestions again, but in a way that the moderators and the author can consider (without censorship) so as to improve this article significantly, as I presume that is what we'd all like to do for Wikipedia today. Thank you for your patience.

1) Provide the sources that are being described in this article. For example, "Evolution has been described as..." and "Evolution is generally defined as..." Who is the author quoting or citing here? Please provide the names in a fair and accurate manner so that readers can examine all viewpoints.

2) "Creationism" is a word of controversial origin that is used to downplay the worldviews of people who believe in God or adhere to religions. So this article should be revised to eliminate the denigrating use of words like "Creationism" or "Creationists." The history of this word can be found here: [[29]].

3) The fact of God's interaction with His creation was omitted from this article. I only point this out for the author and moderators to consider why and thus also consider a way to improve this article. "Facts are 'events that occur' or 'the state of being of things' that are referred to" was a phrase taken from the author's citations (#19). "A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true." (#24) It seems rather one-sided and argumentative that Evolution has some factual advantage over the knowledge of God. (The fact of God is a hypothesis firmly supported by evidence, by the way. Please expand upon that in this article as a way to make it better.) My point in this suggestion is to eliminate the "us versus them" theme that is strewn throughout this article. When I consider the author's presentation and thesis of "Evolution is a fact!", I realize how factual beliefs in God are. To improve this article, then, it would behoove the author to include citations and references to those who recognize the fact of God, as well as the fact that Evolution has never been visibly recorded to this date, while God's interactions have been. This is a good suggestion, in my humble opinion, as it would make the article seem less biased. The evidence for an omnipotent, eternal Creator is rather vast, though omitted from this article for reasons I won't speculate upon here. (The marriage between atheism and Evolution is readily recognizable, especially as referenced in this article by Richard Dawkins and other commentators cited here.)

4) Encyclopedia are not to be formatted for argumentation. According to thi link: [[30]], "[a]n encyclopedia... is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." In order to be a credible encyclopedic entry, the author must confirm the varying viewpoints surrounding the topic presented, or at least link to them. In the case of this article, the author does focus on a particular branch of knowledge (that some folks hold Evolution as a fact because it leads to other beliefs they hold as facts), but fails to adequately present viewpoints that vary from that line of thinking. The citations/references listed here tend to gravitate toward a specific, argumentative commentary. This cannot be construed as encyclopedic in format, so my suggestion to improve this article is to present viewpoints from references that grant the now-favored label of "fact" to things this author omitted. A way to consider this suggestion is in light of this article's reference to "When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[" (#26) If we are only talking about a high probability (the "only" definition of a "fact"), then it would behoove the author to examine and fairly and accurately present the high probability of God and His interaction with His creation that, undoubtedly, the vast majority of human beings do not doubt. That is, the citations the author uses here should not be intended to advance a particular theme, agenda, or thesis. (The belief that Evolution is so highly probable that it is coined as a "fact," while the belief that God (or whatever word people use to describe Him) is so lowly probable that it cannot be... this is very arbitrary and deserves a fair treatment of differing viewpoints.) In order to be considered an encyclopedic entry, I would suggest improving this article by applying these definitions (and others) to viewpoints that do not hold "Evolution is fact!" It would come off as more scientific, then, and more open-minded, and thus more encyclopedic.

In summary, the thesis presented here is not just one that clarifies facts and theories, but also promulgates a very "Evolution vs. Creation" argument whereby Evolution is fact and Creationism is not. In order to improve this article, this thesis should be removed. After all, there still remains no "proof" that Evolution has ever occurred. This means that if we are to consider Evolution as a "fact," then such a downgrade in terminology would open up things like Creation, religion, etc. to the same classification. That is, if the word "fact" is something that humans deem something that is highly probable and perhaps even leads to other highly probable "facts," then such a denotation applies even to the things we might not hold as so probable. Such an open-mindedness would be welcome in this article. The high probability of God, as just one example, also leads to other highly probable "facts," such as the Resurrection and the salvation from sin, let alone the inherent nature instilled into human beings. I present that "fact" only as an example because I have read folks here who have stated their belief in the "high probability" of Evolution but then downplayed or denigrated the "high probability" of God. If we are talking about "facts" here, then such a word surely applies to even things we wish it didn't. Please improve this article by discussing those things, Mr. Author. (For example, who views God as a high probability, and thus fact; and who does not? If we want readers to understand what a fact is, then let's examine all sides of issues such as this, as currently this article really only bends for the "Evolution, not Creationism, is a fact!" Let's change this and make this article better.)

Those are my four (4) suggestions and summary on how to improve this article. I am hoping that the author and the moderators will consider the valid points that I have made here. It is my sincere hope and intent to convince folks reading encyclopedia that there are always more than just one or a few viewpoints out there. Having authors who acknowledge this fact and then present those other viewpoints fairly really do make encyclopedia fun and enlightening to read. I hope that my suggestions to improve this article will be honored in an honest and supportive fashion. Thank you.

Snootcher (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)