In a surprising development, Richard Harrison, chair of Cornell’s Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department seemed to disagree that evolution was a fact in a panel discussion at Cornell yesterday evening. Professor of Neurobiology & Behavior Kern Reeve concured, explaining that he did not like to say evolution is a fact, just an extemely well-supported theory.
Richard Harrison took part in a panel discussion with intelligent design proponent and biophysics professor Cornelius Hunter in a panel discussion on intelligent design and evolution. The discussion was attended by around 250 people in the Engineering school’s largest auditorium.
Responding to questioning from Professor Hunter, Professors Harrison and Reeve admitted that evolution was not a fact. Hunter was trying to make the point that evolutionists and evolutionary textbooks routinely say evolution is a fact.
If this really is Harrison’s and Reeve’s opinion, and not just an equivocation in the middle of a debate the two professors disagree with the majority of evolutionists, including evolutionists such as Stephen J. Gould and the astronomer Carl Sagan who repeatedly argued that evolution is a fact. Professor Harrison also puts himself at odds with the textbooks used in the major evolution classes here at Cornell, including Futuyma’s textbook Evolutionary Biology, which says that, “. . . evolution is a scientific fact. But the fact of evolution is explained by evolutionary theory” (pg. 13). Futuyma continues later in the chapter: “The explanation of how modification occurs and how ancestors give rise to diverse descendants constitutes the theory.”
During the question and answer period, members of the audience also had trouble with Hunter’s allegation that evolutionists said evolution is a fact. One evolutionist in the audience made the point even stronger, by saying that no self-respecting scientist or biologist would call the theory of evolution a fact.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Powered by WordPress.
25 queries. 0.439 seconds
April 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
These various evolution supporters are not disagreeing over the strength of the theory of evolution, they are merely disagreeing over the definition of fact. For example, Gould has written:
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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” 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 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 assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Other people may reserve the term “fact” for observations, and use “theory” for the ideas that tie the observations together. If you’re going to talk about someone denying evolution as a “fact”, you should also mention the definition by which they do so. I don’t see where you have reported on the definitions of “fact” used by Harrison and Reeve.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Hunter was using the definition of fact such as gravity is a fact or the fact that the earth is spherical. This is the same definition of fact that Gould and Futuyma use.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Odd, I don’t recall Hunter giving us his definition of “fact”. In fact, I recall his begging off that question, saying that his own statements were not at issue, but those of evolution supporters. He did not relay the definitions used by those evolution supporters. That is objectionable behaviour.
I will also point out that you still have not given us the definition of “fact” being used by Harrison and Reeve when they say evolution is not a “fact”. Since you don’t know their definition, you should have stated that forthrightly in your post. Not to do so is objectionable behaviour.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Wamba,
Don’t be silly. If you went to the panel discussion, you sure didn’t listen carefully. Hunter did relay the definitions used by evolution supporters, and it is the one I repeated in comment 2.
April 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
How dare you not interpret things the same way as Gerbil!
Fact:
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact
The fact is there are a few ‘facts’…
April 8th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
still waiting to see this ID research, though…
April 8th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Research? I’m waiting to see a definition of Intelligent Design that more than five of its supporters can agree on.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Fact or Theory?
Hmmm, the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture seems to think it is a FACT! Just read this:
If they agree that evolution occurred, then they are saying that it is a fact.
What is a fact? A fact is something that occurred. Even in a court of law, the facts are presented and then the theory of how and why the facts occurred is presented and the jury makes a decision based of both.
In science, a fact, like a court of law, is an observable event. Gravity is a fact, just drop an apple and see. But to science gravity is also a theory, actually a set of theories. The why and how gravity occurs doesn’t change the fact that it occurs, but it does change our understand of how and why it occurrs.
Light is another theory. We understand only a small part of Light and that theory changes a lot. Is it a wave, is it a particle, how fast does it really go? These theories don’t undermine that Light is also a fact because light exists. I can see, so there must be light.
The Atom is another fact/theory thing. Atoms exist because we found a way to blow them up and use them to generate heat. But the theory on what they are and how they works changes a great deal. It doesn’t stop us from being able to blow them up, but it does enhance our understanding.
Evolution, defined as change over time, is a fact. There is way to much evidence to dispute the facts of evolution occurring. The theory explaining evolution is changing all the time as new knowledge is added to the mix. So when an ID proponent tells you evolution isn’t a fact, just point to one of the leading ID organizations, the Discovery Institute and say it is according to them!
I will have to add that if nothing else ID propoents are adaptable. As the law rules against them, they change their story:
Oh, I can’t teach Creationalism because it’s not science, OK, let’s call it Creational Scinece. Oh, I can’t teach that one because it’s religious? OK, let’s call it ID and turn it into sicnece. OH, I can’t mandate ID because it’s still to closely tied to religion, so let’s attack evolution instead. Oh my attacks on evolution are failing, let’s no long deny evolution, but argue the theory. Sure, just because we are losing adherents left and right because we keep changing our gameplan (Young Earth Creationalists seem to be disillusioned with ID because it denies God’s part in it).
Wow, I see another example of evolution, the ID’s arguments themselves.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Sorry, forgot the link to the Insitute’s story: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....eat_t.html
Happy Reading,
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Great link!
Thread killer! =0P
April 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/.....E_ID=49674
Did the IDEA club forget to mention this little gem? How the Cornell President denounced intelligent design as a “religious belief masquerading as a secular idea.”
Ted
April 14th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Shhhhh!
It’s all gone quiet.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:50 am
I noticed that too. I guess they are posting on other sites. University of Dayton is offering a seminar Monday evening “ID: Bad Science or Bad Religon”. I’ve contacted the professor giving it, because I cannot attend — I’ll be teaching my own class that night. I do disagree that he seems to be offering only a binary choice, but since I jumped the gun a little on Cornell’s course being to ID focused, I’ll wait until I hear from him..
FYI: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/.....41306.html
Ted
April 14th, 2006 at 10:39 am
There’s a real ‘peer review’ dozey going on in one of teh other threads. Where / what do you teach, Ted?
April 14th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I know, I have contributed a little there as well. I think some of the ID proponents are misusing the concept of peer review. To them it seems perfectly logical to publish under the auspices of groups like the Discovery Institute. I mean if they believe what I believe, that’s the definition of a peer, right? I loved Professor Behe’s comments during the Dover Trial claiming that his ideas were under even more scrutiny than if he had published in the normal scientific journals. I would be interested in what he means by ‘more’? Is he trying to say that publishing popularly opens it to more people? That is true, but that certainly doesn’t mean a more indepth scrutiny, just one with a wider audience. Plus publicizing that way means you really don’t have to actually support your ideas, just present them and then whine when you get criticized and smile when you get applauded. You can always fall back on “They didn’t understand” for the critical comments and “They love me” for the positive ones. Plus just think about how much love you get from other rabid followers of ID when you publish through the Discovery Institute? A regular orgy of adulation from people who already are believers. You gotta love it . . .NOT!
I am a computer geek and teach at a Community College near Dayton OH. It’s fun and keeps me off the streets at night, or I might have more time to post to various ID BLOGs and ListServers.
Ted