Mr.KAT Hevoiselle

Mr.K.A.T. kirjoitti:

Artikkeliisi "Evoluutio olematon (..Hevoinen
jatkaa)" 15.04.2001 klo 20.11
viitaten

Kun sinä kerran uskot enempi lainaamiasi Stephen
J. Gouldia ja Theodosius Dobzhanskyä niin
tottapahan sitten otat todesta myös nämä
lainaamiesi tiedemiesten lausumat:

----------------------------------------------
However, biologists readily admit that they are
less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution;
there are several theories of the
mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put
this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often
means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of
confidence running
downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to
guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument:
evolution is "only"
a theory and intense debate now rages about
many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse
than a fact, and
scientists can't even make up their minds
about the theory, then what confidence can we have
in it? Indeed,
President Reagan echoed this argument before
an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in
what I devoutly
hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a
theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has
in recent years been
challenged in the world of science - that is,
not believed in the scientific community to be as
infallible as it once
was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
And facts and theories are different things, not
rungs in a hierarchy of
increasing certainty. Facts are the world's
data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts.
Facts don't go away when scientists debate
rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory
of gravitation replaced
Newton's in this century, but apples didn't
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
And humans
evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they
did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some
other yet to be
discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute
certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world.
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow
deductively from stated premises and achieve
certainty only
because they are NOT about the empirical
world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual
truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us
falsely for a style of argument that they
themselves favor). In science
"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withhold
provisional consent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal
time in physics
classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this
distinction of fact and theory from the very
beginning, if only because
we have always acknowledged how far we are
from completely understanding the mechanisms
(theory) by which
evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually
emphasized the difference between his two great
and separate
accomplishments: establishing the fact of
evolution, and proposing a theory - natural
selection - to explain the
mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and
Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the
scientific community. In other words, the experts
on evolution consider it to be a fact.
This is not an idea that originated with Gould as
the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is
established beyond reasonable doubt, and what
needs further study, about
evolution. Evolution as a process that has
always gone on in the history of the earth can be
doubted only by those
who are ignorant of the evidence or are
resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks
or to plain bigotry. By
contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution
about certainly need study and clarification.
There are no
alternatives to evolution as history that can
withstand critical examination. Yet we are
constantly learning new and
important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology
Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",
American Biology
Teacher vol.35 (March 1973) reprinted in
Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg
ed., ORYX Press,
Phoenix AZ 1983
-----------------------------------

Välimuodoista puhuessaan Hevoinen käytti jopa
50-70 luvulta peräisin olevia lausuntoja, mutta
unohtaa jatkuvasti mainita 70-80-90 luvun uudempia
löytöjä:
-Turkana boy luuranko miljoonien vuosien takaa,
Leakeyn työryhmän löytö
-kuinka täydellinen Lucyn luuranko on.
-uudet kiinalaiset liskolintufossiilit, juttua
MMM-vuosikirjassa, National geographic;ssa ollut


Hevoinen sanoi myös:
" Tavoista joilla todistaa ikä, muistakaa että ne
ovat kaikki TEORIOITA, eikä niitä ole muuksi
tarkoitettukaan. En tiedä yhtäkään tapaa jota
olisi sanottu varmaksi, vaan ne ovat
keksijöidensäkin silmissä vain teorioita. Kuten
ikävä kyllä, koko evoluutio, taitaisi olla
villiä ja tyhmää esittää VARMA teoria
evoluutiosta. "

-Mitä sanoisit piispana Galileolle 1600-luvulla ?
Eikö kaukoputken toimivuuteen vaadita uskottavaa
toimivaa optiikan teoriaa? Siinä galileolle ei
ollut toimivaa teoriaa (kuten Keplerillä), mutta
silti..
Siinä mielessä myös se lainaamasi Gouldin sanoma
on tosi. " Facts do not `speak for themselves';
they are read in the light of theory".
Me emme koskaan näe suoraan kolmiulotteisesti
paljain silmin kuun pallomaisuutta kuten
lentopallon pyöreyttä tai maan litteyttä vastaan
vaan siihen vaaditaan kasa oletuksia ja teorioita,
teorioita linssin optiikasta, että se toimii, ei
näytä harhoja jne, että valo kulkee suoraan kuun
pinnalla kuten maassa tyhjiössä jne...

Mutta jos sinä väität evoluutiota "vain" teoriaksi
vaikka olemme "suoraan" havainneet jopa
lajiutumisen, niin millä perusteella väität maan
kiertävän aurinkoa ? Sillä koska amerikoissa on
uskovia Ph.D. eli tohtorismiehiä jotka väittää
että maa ei liiku kuten Raamattu sanoo ;)

Minä sanon:
Hevoiselle myös maan pallonmuotoisuus ja maan
liike auringon ympäri "ovat-vain-teorioiden
todistamia ns. ovat-vain-teorioita" vaikka hän
muuta koittaisi väittää.

;)

terv. Mr. K.A.T.

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä