RE: Whales once lived on land???

9/22/2001; 9:43 AM by Ed Leafe
9/22/2001; 9:43 AM by Ed Leafe
(#Top of Thread.)
None.
534

On 9/22/2001 4:43 AM, Jim Roepcke supposedly said:

>Hey Ed that's one of my best friends' opinions you just called ignorant.
>I'd appreciate it if you apologized privately or on this list, whatever
>you prefer.

I'm sorry, but here was the original statement:

"There are - in fact - several theories on the origin of life, not just
one. Evolution IS still a theory and is not yet even remotely close to
being scientifically proven - contrary to the language espoused by most
modern scientists who seem to take it for granted as fact."

This is the standard party line of creationists who want their faith
to be taught alongside science as equivalents. They point out that
evolution is "just a theory", using the common English meaning of the
word "theory" to imply something along the lines of "just a wild-assed
guess". They certainly don't properly use the correct meaning of the
scientific term "Theory" (note the captial "T"), which means a unified
set of principles, knowledge, and methods for explaining the behavior of
some specified range of empirical phenomena. A Theory must not only
explain observations, it must be testable, either by observing the
phenomena in action, or by reasoned conclusions that must follow from the
Theory that have predictive value about yet-unobserved phenomena.
Obviously, we can only directly observe evolution on a small scale, since
by its definition its effects are developed over time frames much longer
than human lifespans. But it has been consistently supported by both the
fossil and genetic evidence to date. And of course it still has a way to
go before it is "proven", which is obviously a much more stringent
requirement than being a Theory. In fact, the term "proven Theory" is an
oxymoron - if it's proven, then it is no longer a Theory.

For someone to mis-apply the common term "theory", along with its
implication of "just a guess", to the Theory of evolution, there can be
two possibilities. Either they are aware of the difference, and
consciously tried to twist its meaning by a deliberate equivocation, or
they simply don't know enough about science to properly use the term.
IMO, the former case, one who consciously misleads, is a dishonest person
and should be pointed out as such. I gave Jodi the benefit of the doubt
here, as her words did not appear to be wrapped in the usual virulent
tone of the deceivers, and assumed that she mis-used the term out of
ignorance of the difference.

Jodi, I do apologize to you, as my statement seems to have had an
effect on you way out of proportion to my intent. I read the message you
posted titled "Am I ignorant?". In it you said that "a fellow named Ed
replied to my comments and labeled me "ignorant" for my thoughts". I
certainly hope that after reading this, and reading my original post,
you'll understand that I neither did nor intended to do any such thing. I
said your statement was ignorant, and that is a very different thing than
saying that you are. Hell, I don't even know you! How could I possibly
make such a sweeping disparagement of a person based on a three-sentence
post?

I certainly make ignorant statements myself when I speak of things
for which I only have passing knowledge. I'm sure I've made my fair share
these past two weeks when discussing the history of the Middle East that
has led to the recent atrocities. If someone corrects me, I appreciate it
when they do so, but only as long as they do so respectfully. Perhaps I
was not as respectful in my reply, and for that I do apologize. Please
accept this apology with the explanation that as a trained scientist, I
find myself constantly trying to clear up the obfuscations of the
scientifically ignorant who are trying to push their own agendas, the
truth be damned. That doesn't excuse an insensitive response, but I hope
it at least helps you to understand that it was in no way meant as a
personal attack.




___/
/
__/
/
____/
Ed Leafe
http://leafe.com/

None.