Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You were talking about evolution, to start with, tho. We know there are 
>> theories that aren't complete. We know there are unanswered questions in 
>> every scientific theory. But most stuff tends to be refinements of what 
>> we already know in realms we couldn't measure before. Even quantum and 
>> relativity didn't overthrow newtonian physics - we still use that to 
>> shoot space probes.
> 
>   The problem is that while most knowledgeable people are not claiming
> that the theory of relativity is the absolute truth, many are nevertheless
> saying that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth. Granted, in
> many cases it's the laymen who know little about the actual physics who
> throw claims like "the theory of evolution has been proven to be true",
> especially in heated discussions against creationists, but you can see
> claims along those lines from more knowledgeable people too.
> 
>   For example Phil Plait is a professional astronomer, and you can
> constantly find that kind of attitude in his blog. He doesn't believe
> that evolution is true, he *knows* that evolution is true. It's a fact.
> When reading his blog on this subject it quickly becomes clear that to
> him evolution is exactly the same type of fact as gravity or the existence
> of the Sun. It's quite clear that to him it's not a theory at all, but a
> proven law of nature.
> 
>   It's this kind of "I know" attitude that bothers me.
> 
What bothers me is that there are people out there that still claim that 
"the theory of evolution has *not* proven to be true". It does of course 
depends very much on what the person making this claim thinks the theory 
is about. And there are of course interpretations thinkable that have 
certain aspects in it that are not proven yet or are proven wrong. 
However, it sends the wrong message to the less educated people i.e. 
that every aspect of evolution is under debate. For instance there is 
the basic concept that if you have a reproducing system that in the 
copying process can make mistakes then inevitably this system is going 
to change over time. This is not debated and has indeed a status like a 
law of nature even outside biology. What might be debatable is what 
primate was or wasn't an ancestor of man. Then again that man is mammal, 
more specific a monkey, more specific an ape, that is not debated.
As you know I am doing research on heart diseases and the development of 
the heart. To understand what goes on we also use animal models. Denying 
that man is part of the evolutionary tree of life would make any 
understanding derived from observations on the development of the chick 
embryo useless. In fact, I think you'll be amazed how much of current 
biological and medical research would become meaningless if you don't 
believe in macro-evolution. I know there are doctors in this world that 
would claim that they "don't believe in evolution". Let's hope they 
never find out how their medical knowledge was acquired in the first place.

Post a reply to this message