Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <529@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 21:45:01 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.529 Posted: Mon Jul 1 21:45:01 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 09:23:50 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 23 Summary: In article <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > My difficulty with Evolution is that it is nothing more than a > theory yet many treat it as fact. > "Only a theory"!! Good grief, I thought that the people on this net were intelligent to recognise this fallacy! It is based on a confusion between the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word "theory". In scientific parlance calling something a theory is almost the most definate statement that can be made, it requires *much* evidence to raiese a model from the level of a detail hypothesis to the level of an accepted theory! Please remember, also, that science, by its very nature is contigent, that is *no* absolute statements can be made other than "under such and such conditions, X was observed" (i.e raw observational facts). *Everything* else is interpretation of the data, and its acceptance remains contingent upon new data. Thus, a theory is as close to absolute as is possible while remaining contingent on further observations. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen