> At 09:23 AM 10/17/97 CST+6CDT, chardin wrote:
>
> >David, let me put it this way. It is a fact that certain birds
> >change colors to fit their environment. It is a fact that a body
> >in motion tends to remain in motion unless an outside influence is
> >exerted. It is a THEORY that mankind may have evolved from a
> >different species and it is a THEORY that some 19 billion years ago
> > there was a huge bang and the universe began to fly apart. While
>
> Facts are observations that need to be explained. Theories are
> conceptual models that explain the facts. The fact that life
> exists today has at least two competing theories: evolution and
> creation. (Of course there are many variations of each, including
> combinations of the two.) One theory is not objectively better than
> the other, it depends entirely on the criteria used to judge them.
> If the criteria are logical consistency, explanatory power,
> fruitfulness, and other scientific-type criteria, then you can
> safely say that evolution is better. If the criteria are tradition,
> mythological beauty, simplicity, etc., then you can safely say that
> creation is a better theory. In any case, merely knowing that
> something is a theory doesn't tell you anything about how well it
> explains the facts. After all, the existence of the sun is "just" a
> theory that explains that big yellow thing in the sky. See what I
> mean?
>
Yes, I do see what you mean. However, when you say that humans came
from the ocean and r for this reason they have webbed hands, etc., you
are asserting facts as though you really KNOW it to be the case that
humans were ever in the water full time. I am just saying it is
not fact until you prove it as such.
Your big yellow thing in the sky is something that we can all
observe and speculate about--some of us have access to bigger
telescopes than others, etc., but the facts are not really in
dispute.
However, there are very few facts as to the changing of man from one
species to another, i.e., a primate to human. Scientists produce
such things as Lucy as proof. I'm just saying their proof ought to
be more scientific--less tampered with. It is not a FACT that man
came from apes. It is speculation--a guess made by SOME scientists.
But do not tell me it is the same as fact--that is is an adequate
description of reality. I feel that it is necessary to make this
point because when people speak of this, i.e. apes to human, they
speak as though it were fact and not an educated guess to describe
the situation--a theory.
> >this theory does seem to explain why we have an
> >expanding universe, I cannot claim that it is a fact that 19
> >billion years ago a big bang did happen. I can say that if the Big
> >Bang is true, then such and such. That is permissible. But I
> >cannot in all honesty assert it as a known fact. It is my
> >understanding, BTW, that Stephen Hawking is very uncomfortable with
> >the idea of the Big Bang because of its implications for a creator.
> >Yet, he believes facts
>
> From what I have read of Stephen Hawking's I don't think this is a
> fair characterization.
>
> --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/