Sunspots 567

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:



Christianity: BioLogos reports that almost 100% of scientists believe that humans evolved over time. However, about 50% of white self-reported evangelical Christians who say that they attend church regularly believe that scientists are deeply divided over that question, when they clearly are not so divided.

Computing: From National Public Radio: a wide-ranging interview on cyber-privacy and the government's right to know. It includes a discussion about President Reagan seeing a scary movie.

Politics: (sort of) The New York Times discusses the effects of growing up in a bad neighborhood, and of leaving such a place fairly early in life.

Science: NPR on the unfortunate confusion about the word, theory, in science and elsewhere.

NPR also reports on what non-human primates are thinking.

NPR also reports on a new sort of artificial organism, manufactured from a previous one in nature, by removing genes, one by one, to get to those genes that the organism absolutely has to have, in order to grow and reproduce. We don't know what several dozen of those necessary genes do.

Listverse reports on 10 interesting strategies in the "war" between plants and bugs.

Sports: FiveThirtyEight backs up my guess that Breanna Stewart may be the best player ever, in women's college basketball, with statistics. (She's had lots of help, from Moriah Jefferson, Morgan Tuck and others.)

Image source (public domain)

Is Evolution a fact, or a theory?

Well, it's both. (And, of course, we have to be careful what we mean by "evolution."

Read this explanation of the question of the title. (Not by me.)

Is Intelligent Design falsifiable? Matheson says "no."

Steve Matheson has posted a discussion on the question of whether Intelligent Design (ID) is falsifiable. Most people who have thought about it say that a theory is not a valid scientific theory unless it could be somehow disproved. Matheson makes a good case that ID is not falsifiable. This, as he says, does not prove that ID is not true, but it means that it cannot be taken as a valid scientific theory.

Theories, facts, laws and doubting the truth of natural selection

In my small way, I have argued for many years that part of the disagreements over origins are because terms haven't been well defined. I was thinking principally of the term, "evolution," which, to some, is mostly about, say, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, while to others is about the origin of living things by exclusively random, purposeless processes.

I'm right about that. There is some muddy thinking about the meaning of evolution, some of it purposefully muddy, probably. Such muddiness has led to some unnecessary and avoidable disagreements on the topic of origins. However, I haven't gone far enough. There is also disagreement, or misunderstanding, about such important terms as fact, theory, law, and hypothesis, as they are used by scientists, and by the public at large. Again, such misunderstanding has led to some unnecessary and avoidable disagreement about origins, especially in statements such as "evolution is just a theory, so it doesn't need to be taken seriously." A recent article has attempted to clarify these matters.

The author, T. Ryan Gregory, writes that "Theories explain facts and are tested by generating hypotheses. No matter how much information accrues, hypotheses never become theories, and theories never graduate into laws. These terms describe three distinct aspects of science." ("Evolution as Fact, Theory and Path," Evo. Edu. Outreach (2008) 1:46–52, November 20, 2007. Quote is from p. 48.) He explains his reasoning carefully, and I believe that most all scientists, whatever their beliefs about origins, would agree with it. I also believe that non-scientists can read and understand his reasoning.

He also says:
That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it. To claim that evolution is “just a theory” is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science. (p. 50)

Gregory also points out that there is an opposite error sometimes made, namely that evidence of common descent is taken as evidence for natural selection, which, he says, does not necessarily follow.

Thanks for reading!