evolution in KS

[John Grehan]

Bruce Walsh wrote
>
>--- I think not.  The key here is the evolution makes the prediction
>(i.e. makes a statement IN ADVANCE as to what will happen).  The creationist
>examines the observation AFTER THE FACT.  This is the difference between
>science and religion.

It may be true that creationists examine observations after the fact. But so too
do many evolutionists. Further, there is nothing inherent to creation theory
that I am aware that would prevent them making predictions. If I am
wrong please enlighten.

>However, if we follow John's line of thougth, gravity is only a THEORY,
>not a fact.   We can never see gravity (have you ever seen lines of force
>between objects?), we only see the CONSEQUENCES of gravity.  Likewise, how
>do we know that gravity works on other stars?  Or even on the moon (before
>we got there)?    We believe gravity is a fact because each time we test
>its predictions they hold true.  The same is correct for evolution.

If I recall correctly, at least some philosophers of science regard all
"facts" as theory laden. I agree that be believe gravity (and other concepts)
is fact because its predictions appear to hold true. This simply shows how
contingent facts are upon theory, and for this reason debates over whether
something is a fact or a theory is not all that productive for science.

John Grehan