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)

This discussion was archived by MiszaBot; I have undone the archiving, believing that this discussion is still germane and useful. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on fact

I thought I would add this quote from the citation that Fitzhugh (2007)[13] 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 incorrectly real 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

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM

I am Christian and not a "creationist." I believe that one being created the entire universe and all things in it. I call Him God. I bring this point up because I did not see the fact (as defined by the author's citations) that God created the universe adequately or properly discussed in this article. If special adaptation (which the author tries to label "evolution") is a fact, then surely the fact that God created the universe could be explained better in this article instead of just special adaptation being something observed by humans. Out of the many observations done by humans, it should also be noted that truthful testimony of billions in human history as to their relationship and interactions with God, His works in creation and interacting with His creation, and facts which support many of the theories of nearly all religions in the world should also be discussed in an "fact versus theory" article. "Creationism," then, seems to be a simplistic label for people who disagree with the author, whose bias towards Darwinist and evolutionist theories is quite evident. (The history of the word "creationist" is, of course, one of argumentation.) Furthermore, there is a clear thesis to this article, which is that "Evolution Theory should be called Evolution Fact." The links provided by the author lend to this thesis, of course, are controversial authors and commentators (who are not biology scientists), argumentation against the propped-up demon of "creationism," and even the more hateful and abusive ones that call dissenters to their views "misleading," among other insults. For this to be a credible Wikipedia entry, such propagandizing should be removed. Also, trying to prove that the theory of evolution is a fact is within the realm of free speech, but is not encyclopedic in any way. When the citations and references support calling Evolution Theory (what scientists call it) instead as "evolution fact," this becomes argumentative and not encyclopedic. Please remove all argumentation from this article or simply delete it and post it on an argumentative forum. Lastly, in regards to citations, there are several phantom citations throughout this Wikipedia entry. The readers seem expected to assume the premises of the author's arguments are true in order for the author to convince others that "evolution is a fact." These are too many list here, but reading this Wikipedia entry provides glaring instances of phantom citations. This is a common tactic in argumentative and persuasive writing, which is not what an encyclopedia should entertain. This Wikipedia entry is very much like the links that are used to support it: argumentative, abrasive, subversive, insulting, and ultimately just propaganda. I say propaganda not as an insult, but to point out the clear fact that as many, many people disagree with the thesis of this entry, we are to be derailed as buffoons. Not sure where I came up with that? Start first with this Talk Section and read the author's own words. They explain his motiviation for writing this argumentative entry. Second, click on the links he listed to supports his arguments. It will then be obvious to any open-minded reader that this Wikipedia entry is designed to (1) make a controversial statement and (2) rebut any view to the contrary (such as this odd label of "creationism"). This is why I call this Wikipedia entry propaganda. While propaganda has its place in human society, it should be noted that any encyclopedia is NOT a place for propaganda - even by definition. It seems as though the author thinks that Christians, like myself, who understand and know the fact that God created the universe, also fail to understand and know the fact of special adaptation. Really, the argumentative form of this Wikipedia entry seems like the author is ignorant of the fact that Christians and those he's likely label as "creationists" are usually only opposed to the statement that "humans evolved from primates." I certainly don't believe that humans adapted or "evolved" that way. Is this what the author wants to discuss? That it is a "fact" that humans evolved from primates? It seems like this is the begged question when reading this article. After all, no one anywhere seems to not know that species adapt. However, the vast majority of humans (and probably scientists) probably have a hard time believing that humans came from apes. (This is the controversy that seems to be harkoned in this Wikipedia entry, doesn't it?) I make that generalization knowing the fact that most humans know God or at least that He exists, and that He created all things. The vast majority. So it would be hard for most folks to swallow the argument that humans evolved from apes. In that regard, the author could then re-write this article, perhaps, in support of humans evolving from apes and hwo he thinks that is a fact. But as far as special adaptation is concerned... who are these phantom citations that disagree with that? There seems to be a lot of begging here. Please remove this article and put it somewhere else, or please expound upon the fact of God, the proper dispensation of arguments from others, and the real people who hold views that the author clearly wants to refute. No more "Evolution has been described as..." without proper citations. But, clearly, this kind of article does not belong in an encyclopedia. This was a brash attempt by a very brash author, and the Wikipedia moderators should get to work on this piece. Snootcher (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Encyclopedia's are for reporting the current scientific consensus on what is fact and what isn't. Deities do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry and therefore do not figure in scientific accounts of the origins of the world, of species or of human kind. If you want to know more about religious views of the origin of the world and its denizens you should look in religious texts, not in encyclopedias.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC) There is no evidence for the "fact of God", it would be more appropriate to say the "Conjecture of God". Religion does not fall under the realm of falsifiable claims so it can not be called a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. If you have no useful comments to make about the article please take it elsewhere, this talk page is not a forum. There is no bias towards evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. The fact of evolution has no impact on the existence or not of your God, it is not a related topic, see theological evolution. We don't give creationism extra validity per WP:VALID by pretending it is a valid view , that would violate NPOV. We simply report what the preponderance of reliable sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Every religion has its own god or gods, Wikipedia doesn't choose one as fact. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, your paragraph on human evolution suggests you are confused about what you think this article is about and what its focus is. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Instead of insults and propagating one particular world view ("Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!"), it is first important to produce REAL SOURCES. Simply creating phantom sources for the soul benefit of arguing a thesis is NOT what should be included in an encyclopedia. I have made mention of this point at length, and clearly no one touched on that. Note also the title of this subsection. Does anyone here care that this "fact and theory" article is POV, propagandist, insulting, argumentative, and non-credible? I use these words because they are wholly supported by the style the author used, which is obviously not encyclopedic in format. There should be no theses in encyclopedia, and clearly there is one here. This article should be moderated if Wikipedia wants any credibility in becoming a real encyclopedia. Furthermore, the fact that God exists, created the universe, and is actively involved in His creation was ommitted from this article, showing the bias towards atheism. God, of course, has been known by billions of folks who have provided or even reproduced supporting evidence to their encounters with God. Why was the Fact of God left out of this article? And, again, lastly, who are these phantom sources that allegedly oppose Evolution Theory and this article's thesis ("Evolution is fact!")? Basically, why is no one interested in making this a valid Wikipedia entry? Why would anyone try to protect this article and its thesis so religiously? Any preponderance of any evidence would clearly show that the Fact of God goes beyond mere insults and propagating other worldviews. This preponderance would lead us to question why vocal, antagonistic, and controversial atheist commentators are the primary sources of this entry here. Does anyone care about the scientific method, preponderance of evidence, and credibility anymore? Where are you people? This entry is clearly outside the scope of Wikipedia, but it is clear that the moderators (or at least one) are comfortable with the non-credibility that this entry exhibits. That is not an insult or even a theory. That is just a fact. Move this article to a non-encyclopedia website, alter it for this format, or simply get this thing moderated. Facts are facts, and creating phantom sources, disparaging counter viewpoints, and propagating controversial worldviews are simply providing for Wikipedia's non-credibility. Get to work. We need these phantom citations figured out quick, and the argumentation removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC) {{ec]}Unfortunately, you've been misled. Evolution (including speciation) has been observed (see speciation for examples) and evolution is indeed a fact (read the whole article to understand why). That aside, our job on wikipedia is to report what the reliable sources say, and the high quality, independent, secondary sources we have support those claims. If you have other sources which you believe are not well represented in this article, feel free to present them. In the interim, please see WP:NOTFORUM; we need to keep discussion on article improvements, not on the article subject. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Also, you seem to have changed your comments in the time I took to respond briefly. Wow. This has quickly become WP:TLDR. In the future, please keep your comments as brief as possible so others can read and engage with them. Basically, list sources with only very brief commentary (such as quotes), and we can consider and discuss them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to Improve This Article

1) Eliminate the "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" thesis from this article. If the primary only definition of a fact is that it is highly probable to a point that few or no people doubt it, and that it might lead to other highly probable offerings, then "Creationism," as you call it, is as much a fact as is Evolution. Hence, there is no need for an argumentative thesis that is controversial in an encyclopedic entry.

2) Provide sources that are less controversal so that your entry can have more credibility. Blasphemous atheists going on about the brilliance of Evolution (like Richard Dawkins and others cited here) do this for a living and are quite popular. However, they act outside the scope of encyclopedia. More scrutible sources make the article more credible.

3) Provide sources that disagree that "Evolution is a fact!" and that "Creationism is not a fact!" Intelligent design theory, creation science, and perhaps a few other ideas come to mind. After all, evolution is both a controversial catch phrase intended to excite a bit of anxiety, as well as something that has never been recorded in reality to date. That is, no one has ever seen one species give birth to another species naturally, as if to evolve into a more survivable or enhanced species. If all we are talking about is special adaptations through generations, then we do not need to use the catch phrase of "evolution," which is also being used here as a retort to "creationism." Provide varying viewpoints to make this article more credible.

4) Biological science is a pretty large field. It also includes medicine. Hospitals, the scientific method, and most of the scientific theories that we have built upon in human history have come from the religiously oriented. The point here is that religion and science are a married couple. It seems that the author here might be trying to separate the two, denouncing one and propagating the other. It would make the article better to incorporate the three suggestions above with this fourth one in mind, I think.

Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia. There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community. Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum.

Thanks.

Snootcher (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to want to remove the due weight given to scientific explanations, but have not provided any sources backing up your proposals. There also seem to be some misunderstandings, for example religion and science are entirely compatible according to many: Asa Gray and Ken Miller come to mind as religious scientists who have accepted both the fact and theory of evolution, while believing it to be reconciled with their religious views. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for NOT trolling here, Dave Souza. In response to your point, you are indeed misunderstanding religion and science as being compatible. My point was what I wrote: "Biological science is a pretty large field." It seems like the authors here are trying to pigeonhole things to a more narrow interpretation that fits a certain thesis, which seems rather appalling given the format here at Wikipedia. Also, the whole attribution of "creationism" to religion, etc. Basically, the point is that a lot of stuff was left out, and my suggestion to improve this page is to include it all instead. It is not credible (and amounts to idealogical fascism) to censor out material just because it counters one's personal viewpoints. Surely you would agree with that and would even consider examining viewpoints counter to those in this article, yes? As for "due weight," what is your response to #3 above?Snootcher (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're still posting long walls of text, and you're still requesting changes with no sources listed. Regarding #2, religion (and hence atheism) have nothing to do with this article. This article is about science, and hence we use scientific sources. Richard Dawkins is, foremost, an evolutionary biologist, and so his opinion on evolution is entirely justified here. If you want to make further requests for changes, please make the request very short, and list sources you want to incorporate. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and trying to bait me, Mann_jess. My intention is clear: I provided suggestions to improve this page. Your advice, insults, and threats need to cease. Please either consider the suggestions thoughtfully or simply quit with your negative posting. This subsection is dedicated to the four suggestions above. Respond to them or don't. Please stop with your current tactics, as that might even help your cause down the road. Thanks. Snootcher (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For those who are still not understanding this subsection or might like to derail it, allow me to re-post the summary as a way to get things back on-track. Thank you. "Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia. There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community. Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum. Thanks." Snootcher (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your comments focused on content, not contributors. If you want something changed, the onus is on you to provide sourcing. You may have difficulty finding reliable sources to support item #3. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Just Plain Bill. Now, can you consider my suggestions, please? Notice that my suggestions were content-driven. If you have nothing to consider and respond to here (I don't see a response to any of my four suggestions), then please simply remove your comments. This subsections is not for debate (or worse.) Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous we're even entertaining this guy by allowing this discussion to continue. His viewpoints expressed thus far make it clear he has zero intention of improving the article in respect to science and is here only to push his religious point of view. That coupled with the fact that he obviously hasn't a clue what evolution is or how it pertains to modern biology. Unless anyone objects, I suggest we hat this and any other topic he posts that isn't STRICTLY about improving the article with SPECIFIC changes and sources. — raekyt 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Raeky, you have yet to consider and respond to the suggestions I made here. Please stop trolling and trying to bait me. If you will not treat this subsection fairly and positively, then please do not edit here. I will not respond to your negative edits in the future, so please see if you can be a bit more professional and less attacking. Either respond to any of the four suggestions above, or simply go away. Do not simply harass and censor people; you need to make better points and no longer insult and threaten people. Simply go away if you will not do the latter. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Before it's hatted, I'd prefer to give Snootcher the benefit of doubt concerning his/her sincerity, but to point out several problems.

• This is the wrong article for the objections being made by Snootcher. This article is concerned only with, within the context of the scientific understanding of biological evolution, to what extent is evolution considered to be "fact" or "theory". The article is not about Creationism, or about the Creation–evolution controversy.
• A glance through the archives of this talkpage will show a number of previous similar misunderstandings and fruitless discussions; Snootcher may find it helpful to review these.
• As pointed out several times here, Snootcher has not provided any sources; but a review of the two linked Creationist articles in Wikipedia, and their See also sections, should provide any number of useful sources to buttress to his arguments, and he may want to join in the discussions on those pages if he has something new and useful to add there (not here). Milkunderwood (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to ignore someone's suggestions or censor their words. Either consider and respond to any of my four suggestions above (if you are able or willing), or simply leave them alone (and not take up space here). This subsection is dedicated to those four suggestions. Please remove your comments if you will not discuss those. Thank you.Snootcher (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is important for anyone who wants to respond to this subsection to actually read the suggestions and then consider them. Simply censoring what you are unable to respond to is not the point of this subsection. Please review the four points raised here and offer valid insight. If you do not have that, then please refrain from editing here. Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you your still not complying with WP:NOTFORUM, none of your posts are suggesting improvements to the article, but are just trying to setup some sorta conspiracy against you and creationism by the editors here and wikipedia as a whole. For the final time, any additional posts here MUST comply with WP:NOTFORUM and be about SPECIFIC changes to this article, and not vague "your not being fair about not including creationism". We've told you that the burden is upon you to provide reliable sources for this assertion and you still haven't provided any proof that this article has a problem. Post again with something that isn't about improving the article, or not addressing all the specific concerns we've given you or asked of you then this whole thread will likely be hatted or your comments just deleted per WP:NOTFORUM and continuing down this path and, well, you've been warned of the outcome. At this point you're really just wasting everyone's time and your arguments so far really just amount to WP:BULLSHIT. — raekyt 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact in the literature

Thompsma, there may be no citations easily available, if at all, but it still seems to me the basic problem with this opening:

• "The confusion over the word evolution and the distinction between "fact" and "theory" is largely due to authors using evolution to refer to three related yet distinct ideas: first, the changes that occur within species over generations; second, the mechanism thought to drive change; and third, the concept of common descent. However, among biologists there is a consensus that evolution is a fact"

is that while "evolution" is acknowledged to have different definitions, the basic controversy over "theory" and "fact" is also definitional much more than it is substantive. Seen in this light, there's considerably less disagreement amongst the quoted sources than it may appear. Essentially, Lewontin et al are simply saying the word "theory" has been hijacked by people who do not understand the term in its strict scientific sense, so let's sidestep the problem by discarding that term, and ground the concept of evolution solely as an observable fact. These are semantic rather than conceptual distinctions.

Then when you get down to Fitzhugh in that second section, who argues that evolution is theory not fact, you might want to stick the word "However" at the front, to distinguish him from the others, who are arguing the opposite. But Fitzhugh, again, is really arguing the semantics of "theory" and "fact" rather than the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon. And Muller appears to agree with Fitzhugh, in saying "... in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact ..." [my emphasis].

I think it's important to distinguish for readers between the "phenomenology" (which in one sense or another is accepted by every one of these writers) of evolution, as opposed to these semantic distinctions or disagreements. But I have no idea what sources may be available to clarify this.

I wonder if you may disagree with this analysis. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Milkunderwood...I actually did not write that opening paragraph. I was reading it a couple of weeks ago and thought it read like WP:Synth or WP:OR. I do not agree with the statement, because it implies that authors are confused where the person doing the interpretation of those authors is highlighting their confusion. I'm certain that Gould, Dawkins, and Lewontin, for example, know the difference between those distinctions.

What Fitzhugh is arguing is not really the semantics, but he is actually saying that it is quite imprecise to say that evolution is a fact. In this sense, the opening sentence is kinda correct - there are different hypotheses and theories in evolution that refer to many facts. So to say that evolution is a fact is a very imprecise way of utilizing the term. Fitzhugh's speciality of research puts him in a unique position. He studies the philosophy of science at great length. Here are some notes I put together on researching fact after having some lengthy and deep discussions with Fitzhugh:

According to scientific realism, a fact is "either the being of a thing in a given state, or an event occuring in a thing" (Mahner & Bunge 1997, p. 34). Theories and hypotheses do not turn into facts, but they refer to facts through our perceptions of phenomena. Facts are referred too by the "conjunctions of theories and observed effects" (Fitzhugh, 2007, p. 2). "Phenomena are causal events within the sensory apparatuses of organisms, but in so being, are themselves facts" (Fitzhugh, 2006, p. 40). However, for irrealists (see Hacking, 1988) "'reality' cannot be used to explain why a statement becomes a fact, since it is only after it has become a fact that the effect of reality is obtained" (Latour & Woolgar, 1979, p. 180). In other words, the irrealists do not reject the existence of facts or reality, but they suggest that facts become established and only after they are discovered and socially constructed through the "negotations among small groups of involved research workers" (Hacking, 1988, p. 282).

Is this semantics? As you suggest: "the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon." This goes back to the notion of perceptual hypotheses (see [14]) - because evolution is not really an observable phenomenon - that is an abstraction. Observable phenomena are limited to our perceptions of things and we can really only observe organisms, that do not themselves evolve. We can do breeding experiments, but that isn't really evolution - it might encapsulate parts of evolution, but not the whole of evolution. We can see the transitions so clearly, but that is still a matter of theory.

So to say that evolution is a fact is to suggest that evolution is a thing in a given state or it is an event occurring in a thing. Evolution is neither a thing, but a collection of things in different states, nor is evolution an event occurring in a thing. You might say that the history of life threaded together in one great chain is the thing in a state of flux or it is a historical event and the thing it occurs in can refer to the planet Earth. However, organisms do not evolve, evolution is a population phenomena - so any fact about evolution would have to refer to populations or to say that evolution is a fact would have to refer to the sum total of all populations. Populations form a long line of descendant-antecedent relations where we can postulate phylogenetic hypotheses, but this is not really an event nor is it a thing - it is an hypotheses referring to a collection of facts. Evolution by means of natural selection explains many of the observable facts of life, but is not in itself a fact even if it is true. Facts that are in need of explanation are those that run contrary to the expected outcome of the theory. We record facts on the characters of organisms and note the remarkable similarities and the varieties that are in need of explanation.

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. The point to all this is that it gets very difficult to suggest that "evolution" is a fact, because I really do not know what that could even mean. There are many different kinds of evolutionary theories, none that can be totalled up to say that they represent the whole of evolutionary theory. Dawkins has his replicator genic theory whereas Lewontin and Gould have their dialectical multi-level interactor theory. They are competing theories (personally I think the Dawkins concept has long since been debunked, but that's my personal thought on the matter!). Do we say that evolution is a theory, or do we refer to "the theory of the gene"[15]?Thompsma (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. No, your discussion was not too confusing; I understood your explanation of Fitzhugh's position.

I come from the POV where my own bête noire is definitional - "what do you mean when you use the term fact", for instance? Fitzhugh is using a sharply-defined meaning of the word; but other writers, other than probably Muller, are using the term in other senses; and Muller himself acknowledges the distinction. Then the very unfortunate term "theory" has so many different definitions and meanings that it's impossible to use the word meaningfully without closely specifying the precise sense in which it is intended.

It seems to me this definitional problem underlies the entire present article. To what extent are the different writers arguing about anything substantive about "evolution" - which they certainly do - as opposed to their using terminology that is insufficiently defined and explicated, so that there is more the appearance of disagreement concerning "theory" vs "fact" than actually exists?

I hesitate to jump in and make any edits to the article itself, but I think I will go ahead and stick "However" at the front of Fitzhugh, since otherwise he does not fit under that heading at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's how the dialectics of science works. There is no prescribed method on how to do it, because it is a social enterprise. It is not entirely a definitional problem - it is just the nature of science that remains open to paradigm shifts, both in the way it is practised and in the way it sees the world. It is also the nature of language, which is by its very nature metaphorical. Lewontin wrote about this in his book - "The Triple Helix" pointing out the aptly noted dictum of Alexander Rosenblueth and Norbert Weiner: "the price of metaphor is eternal vigilance". Authors are in the habit of making statements that affirm facts, but this is a rhetorical tool. We can also create a matter of fact by getting everyone to watch and agree with the veracity of our facts by witnessing the experimental proof (this is what Robert Boyle did for his experiments - creating a matter of fact), but those facts may yet still be found false in subsequent investigation.

So facts require a bit of convincing, we need to make a convincing argument for extraordinary facts, but if I tell you that I measured a salamanders head width and it was 2.4 cm - I think you would readily accept that to be so, there is no reason not to believe otherwise. So facts are not all the same, some are more extraordinary while others are more mundane. They are also independent of science - facts are the worlds data and exist weather we believe or even if we don't know of them. When Muller hesitantly used his fact statement in the rhetorical sense - he was referring to the "matter of fact" that scientists would all agree with the general statement that life evolved - descent with modification. But this is not really the kind of fact that scientists use in their research, it is not an objective tool. This kind of fact is more like the way social facts are constructed and they are not very interesting to the scientist. It is another thing to say that in "real nature" outside our epistemological arguments that all of life evolved via descent with modification. What if in a small puddle in the Amazon a new life form is brewing. Unlikely, but perhaps it came and then went without anyone noticing. We tend to agree that life appeared once and once it came into existence it seems to have prevented new life from forming - it took over the planetary niche, as far as we know. How did life evolve? It evolved by Darwinian mechanisms, but is that the only way? Perhaps, but we don't know yet and can never really know all the answers to these questions. Science, however, is the best method we have for knowing and this is why it is best to keep fact and theory separate. We use theory to refer to the facts, so why would we even want to flip this around and use facts to refer to theory? How could you even use a fact to refer to theory? It is irrational - something science is not.

I am fine with keeping the gravity debate open. I would like to share a warning about the gravity piece that Richard Lewontin gave indirectly in his Massey Lectures ([16]) - where he warns of the dangers when one discipline tries to lay its theory over another. An example he gives is cultural evolution, which makes him irate. He thinks it is dangerous to take Darwins materialist theory on organisms and import into culture and expect that it will give an adequate explanation. So to take gravity as an example of a "theory" and then to say that it is the same as evolution as an example of a "theory" is violating the contextual dynamics of theory. Theories do not always work in the same way.Thompsma (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)