MOVIE: "Expelled"

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz << Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007) >>

Bear << It really depends on the scientists you actually consult, doesn’t it? Here’s a, ID rebuttle to the book you favor. >>

Not really. And the word is spelled “rebuttal.” There was no need to quote all that, just summarize, with maybe a short quote or two. Actually I probably agree with some of that critique of Prothero’s book, since Prothero is coming from a (theologically) agnostic position (he was interviewed recently on radio by ID supporter Tom Woodward for his “Darwin or Design” program). I do not agree with Prothero’s agnosticism, his critique of the Bible, etc. That is a separate issue from the science and paleontology in Prothero’s book which is excellent.

Donald Prothero is well-known as a professional geologist and paleontologist. He has the books, the peer-reviewed articles, and the decades of research to show it. The Discovery Institute blog “Evolution News and Views” are not well known as professional geologists, professional paleontologists, or professional anything.

In addition, I wasn’t referring to the Cambrian Explosion. I was referring to Chapter 13 of Prothero’s book on the Reptile-Mammal transition. Please pay attention: that’s what you want to rebut.

If you want to refer to the Cambrian Explosion, you’ll want to consult the most recent authoritative book on the subject, even more authoritative than Prothero, which happens to be:

On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004) :

“The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, and even the body-plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional sources of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. And he was correct in so much more.” (Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla, preface page xxiii)

Let’s summarize, according to the most recent authoritative book on the “Cambrian Explosion” :

(1) Darwin is the greatest biologist who ever lived
(2) The book (On the Origin of Phyla) was titled after the greatest biological work ever written (Origin of Species)
(3) Although many things were unknown in Darwin’s day, many additional sources of evidence and data confirm that Darwin was correct
(4) All living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life
(5) And Darwin was also correct that the guiding principle and process was natural selection

BTW, ARN (an ID think-tank) offers interviews with James W. Valentine, so they must know something I don’t about the guy. I have their DVD interview with Valentine and he doesn’t support “Intelligent Design” as an explanation for the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Yep, you have to play by my rules or I’m taking my evolution ball and going home. And if you do quote that “Dissent from Darwinism” list, I will simply reply with "Project Steve" and maybe a PandasThumb article or three on that “dissent” list. Hint: very few of those “dissenters” were/are practicing biologists.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << Darwinians, like you, are always trying to find how everything got here. You search and search and will swallow any silly thing as long as God isn’t attached to the explanation. >>

BTW, I’m Catholic, Catholic Darwinist if you prefer. And I call my site Evangelical Catholic Apologetics since I have a lot of William Lane Craig and other evangelical material on my site. Not only is God “attached” the following are De Fide teachings on creation:

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

bean << I’m going to give you a clue about human evolution Phil: The first man was the individual that God put a human soul into. Before this happened, there were no men. God did it!! He created man in His own image. >>

Actually I agree with that, we just don’t know when or exactly how God did that. As I’ve linked before, here is an article attempting to solve this problem:

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Phil P

 

[Steve40]

I saw the movie Expelled last night and I thought it it was well done. Ben Stien interviews several Evolutionist during the movie. It was fascinating that they sight Darwinism as the source of their atheism.

It also went into the link between Darwinism and Nazi and Planned Parenthood Eugenics and Euthanasia. It is a must see for anyone in the battle for life and social justice and how the battle is affected by atheism.

My one criticism is that He did not spend a lot of time on irreducible complexity within the human design. However, he did go into the enormous complexity of even a single cell and that evolutionist can not explain how the first cell began. Richard Hawkins said that he believes it could be possible for intelligent life to have evolved someplace else and the single cell planted on our planet but it could not have been God.

 

[foolishmortal]

I have to admit to be being full of a lot of hot air and anger about seeing this world go to modernism. Still, in all humility, it’s liklely I had some things about which to ponder.

I think there were Darwinists before Darwin, if we’re talking about a philosophy. Maybe the Spaniards who bullied the Indians that were converted by Our Lady of Guadalupe had the same spirit. I know I have felt it before, being from a civilization that has been very advanced. For that reason, so has the Japanese, Chinese and Moslems (none of our civilizations were around when civilizations were first formed, but we still get prideful). I think Darwin just gave the elitists an immoral imperative to keep conquering people in the southern hemisphere and even the southern states, for starters. That is the only reason there would have to be for evolution to be so indoctrinated into peoples’ minds using Darwin fish with feet and a museum with a picture of some primate giving a human skeleton a stick as a response to God’s “finger” touching that of a man’s.

Otherwise, I think evolutionary science is really something for grown-up kids who still like to discover things who want to understand how things work. They have not yet, but the adult side wants to be content with something that seems good enough, I think. How our bodies work now and the study of viruses and how they can spread, by studying bones of people who are most like us, is what’s important, I believe, because we know enough to make it useful for the well-being of others and we can be sure how something occured.

It is funny, though, that, while we white people try to be tan, oftentimes, people with more melanin than we value the lighter skin. Of course, that’s just because darker skin indicates people with less education who work with their hands–and that doesn’t mean holding a calligraphy pen or brush).

It’s also funny that social liberals (elitist socialist libertines, as I think the Rockefellers have been) seem to not know if they are to care for the 3rd worlders or get rid of the “useless eaters” to “save the planet”. It’s even funnier that they accuse social conservatives of being the haters when we are against the hate that their beloved UN shows people of the 3rd world. I’m not sure if, at the top epsilon of the movers and shakers, there is a conservative or liberal. What if the neo-pagans see Christianity as a radical movement and they want the good ol’ days when the low-class sucked, the upper-class ruled, and the middle-class wish they were posers. It still was kept alive in Confucian societies and amongst Christian ones that forgot what Jesus taught.

We all want to rule the world, as the '80s song went. Maybe we non-snooty types try that vicariously though the net or talk-radio we might as well day “Duh”, just because we make grammatical mistakes (we all can’t be scientists, but common folk and children smell bull easier than those in the know and thus, the elite’s need for indoctrination and propaganda); whereas elites and wannabes try that as social experiments. We prefer the minority report when we smell bull. They’re usually the real free-thinkers, whether correct or not in their findings. I don’t believe the evolutionists had the minority report before Darwin or the Scopes trial. I’m not sure if what was said about the Kolbe Center is necessarily true as they may just be a bit paranoid of the mainstream and reaching out to sympathetic thinkers.

I really need to get off the forums, even when I find something useful to post. I, for the past 2 or 3 days, have been unsuccessfully trying to videophone my sister to say “Happy Birthday”. While waiting in-between tries I foolishly looked to see what people had to say. I tried to cut off e-mail notification of responses to responses on these threads, but it didn’t work. I hope to find out how if it’s possible.

I hope, despite some mistakes in grammar or lexicon, drpmjhess still thinks I might still have a chin.

 

[drpmjhess]

I think there were Darwinists before Darwin, if we’re talking about a philosophy. Maybe the Spaniards who bullied the Indians that were converted by Our Lady of Guadalupe had the same spirit. … I think Darwin just gave the elitists an immoral imperative to keep conquering people in the southern hemisphere and even the southern states, for starters.

Don’t forget, Darwin is also responsible for the Great Fire of London (1666), the Black Death (1348-50), the Fall of the Roman Empire, and the last Ice Age. We can’t let him off the hook too easily!

 

[foolishmortal]

I already mentioned that there was a kind of Darwinism before Darwin. I thought you might read the responses before or as you checked them for spelling, grammar and usage mistakes.
I think we all appreciate the care you put into your messages, but this is not a theological, scientific or other kind of professional journal. Don’t expect a Chicago Tribune article or something from JSTOR. These posts are little more than an IM when it comes to spellchecking, so I am interested in the ideas put out. One good idea that makes you think is good enough for me on these forums.
If these mistakes were made in professional journals, that too would not discredit the ideas, There should be standards in professional writing and, in there, those mistakes should not be allowed. I’m surprised that those who stripped the churches in the spirit of Vatican 2, so as to lighten up the atmosphere, also did not strip the standards from the way their documents were written. I couldn’t help it! The opportunity to go there was too tempting!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I saw the movie Expelled last night and I thought it it was well done. Ben Stien interviews several Evolutionist during the movie. It was fascinating that they sight Darwinism as the source of their atheism.

It also went into the link between Darwinism and Nazi and Planned Parenthood Eugenics and Euthanasia. It is a must see for anyone in the battle for life and social justice and how the battle is affected by atheism.

My one criticism is that He did not spend a lot of time on irreducible complexity within the human design. However, he did go into the enormous complexity of even a single cell and that evolutionist can not explain how the first cell began. Richard Hawkins said that he believes it could be possible for intelligent life to have evolved someplace else and the single cell planted on our planet but it could not have been God.

Evolution is still the best scientific explanation around, ID is still theology, and Expelled is just the usual junk trying to pass itself off as science. Your statements are anecdotal, and there is no proven correlation between any of the things you allude to. Obsessing about atheism is a great way to avoid the real issue of science.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I am excited to see it!

 

[bear06]

PhilVaz << Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007) >>

Bear << It really depends on the scientists you actually consult, doesn’t it? Here’s a, ID rebuttle to the book you favor. >>

Not really. And the word is spelled “rebuttal.” There was no need to quote all that, just summarize, with maybe a short quote or two. Actually I probably agree with some of that critique of Prothero’s book, since Prothero is coming from a (theologically) agnostic position (he was interviewed recently on radio by ID supporter Tom Woodward for his “Darwin or Design” program). I do not agree with Prothero’s agnosticism, his critique of the Bible, etc. That is a separate issue from the science and paleontology in Prothero’s book which is excellent.

Donald Prothero is well-known as a professional geologist and paleontologist. He has the books, the peer-reviewed articles, and the decades of research to show it. The Discovery Institute blog “Evolution News and Views” are not well known as professional geologists, professional paleontologists, or professional anything.

In addition, I wasn’t referring to the Cambrian Explosion. I was referring to Chapter 13 of Prothero’s book on the Reptile-Mammal transition. Please pay attention: that’s what you want to rebut.

If you want to refer to the Cambrian Explosion, you’ll want to consult the most recent authoritative book on the subject, even more authoritative than Prothero, which happens to be:

On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004) :

“The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, and even the body-plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional sources of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. And he was correct in so much more.” (Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla, preface page xxiii)

Let’s summarize, according to the most recent authoritative book on the “Cambrian Explosion” :

(1) Darwin is the greatest biologist who ever lived
(2) The book (On the Origin of Phyla) was titled after the greatest biological work ever written (Origin of Species)
(3) Although many things were unknown in Darwin’s day, many additional sources of evidence and data confirm that Darwin was correct
(4) All living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life
(5) And Darwin was also correct that the guiding principle and process was natural selection

BTW, ARN (an ID think-tank) offers interviews with James W. Valentine, so they must know something I don’t about the guy. I have their DVD interview with Valentine and he doesn’t support “Intelligent Design” as an explanation for the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Yep, you have to play by my rules or I’m taking my evolution ball and going home. And if you do quote that “Dissent from Darwinism” list, I will simply reply with "Project Steve" and maybe a PandasThumb article or three on that “dissent” list. Hint: very few of those “dissenters” were/are practicing biologists.

Phil P

Wel, Fil, sins you’re goin to take yor bol home… And really, rebuttal is spelled rebuttle late at night, when I have a head cold, in my house. No need to be so snide. They really need a follow up to Grammar Snobs Are Great, Big, Meanies called Spelling Snobs Are Great Big Meanies. Grammar and spelling will be weak on most occasions. I’ve got many things in life to distract me and the last thing I need is the “lookie she spelled something wrong” types.

I was paying attention, I was just rebutting the book in general. That’s why I said it was a rebuttal to our favorite book, not chapter.

It’s rather clear that you an I will see eye to eye on Darwin. BTW, I don’t actually discount the whole of evolution, just most aspects of Darwinism. BTW, have you read the Woodward books?

 

[onetruechurch]

Is it safe for me to jump in without my wetsuit? I hear the sharks are hungry.
I saw the movie last night in a packed theater.
When I first saw the title, “Expelled” I thought maybe David Horowitz had come out with a movie about what was happening at almost all of our American colleges…no non-liberals allowed! He has been trying to expose the unfairness to the non-liberal professors for years. In fact, he wrote a book, “The Professors, 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America”
Then, I found out the theme was evolution. How can evolution even happen if there isn’t first a “first cause”? Where did that crystal come from that Dawkins thinks “could” have been the source for the first “living” being? Oh, that’s right…it came from another more intelligent creator than earthlings. ding ding ding ding…a UFO! My only disappointment with the movie is that Ben didn’t push for the “Uncaused cause!” Everyone in the audience hooted and snorted when Dawkins said life could have come from that crystal or the UFO.

 

[Steve40]

Evolution is still the best scientific explanation around, ID is still theology, and Expelled is just the usual junk trying to pass itself off as science. Your statements are anecdotal, and there is no proven correlation between any of the things you allude to. Obsessing about atheism is a great way to avoid the real issue of science.

From an engineering perspective the concept of irreducible complexity leaves very little room for evolution. The problem is that even the most simple cell is extreemly complex and evolution just can not explain how it came into being. There are functions with a sigle cell that could not exist without each other and could not have evolved simulataneously.

Engineers that use applied science on a regular basis have a lot of difficulty with evolution as a mechanism of how life came about. So, I guess it depends upon your field of expertise, which explaination is best. Itelligent Design is based upon the concept of irreducible complexity which is fact within the engineering world. Therefore to engineers ID/irreducible complexity is a better way of looking at life forms. Kids should be studing life froms from an engineering perspective. It is more useful in the real world than a theory that can not stand up to the complexity we see today in a single cell.

 

[PhilVaz]

bear << BTW, have you read the Woodward books? >>

I have read most of his first book (Doubts About Darwin) which is a detailed history of the ID movement from an ID supporter. Its actually very good, and based on his Ph.D. dissertation in “Religious Rhetoric” from USF. The counter would be Creationism’s Tojan Horse by Forrest/Gross which is also a history of the ID movement but from an anti-ID skeptical perspective.

I don’t have his second book (Darwin Strikes Back), but I listen to his weekend radio program “Darwin or Design?” when I remember its on. As I mentioned, he had on Donald Prothero a few weeks back and talked about his book for about an hour. Woodward had to interrupt often since Prothero was slaughtering him in debate. I would have recorded it if I’d known he was going to be on. It is a Saturday program for an hour on WTBN “BayWord” AM 570 here in Tampa Bay area. I might Email and/or call the number listed to try to get some tapes and/or MP3 of the program.

Phil P

 

[Monty_Arch]

G Why would God have to mess around with all the middle steps before homo sapien sapiens. That makes no sense to me.

This probably makes no sense to you either: atoms further divided into protons,neutrons, electrons; protons and neutrons divided into quarks; and so on.

 

[PhilVaz]

onetrue << Where did that crystal come from that Dawkins thinks “could” have been the source for the first “living” being? >>

Not Dawkins, that was Michael Ruse of Florida State Univ that made the “on the backs of crystals” statement for the origin of life. He is not an expert on the origin of life, he is a philosopher of science. How “crystals” got here would come from an explanation of the formation of earth itself, which would in turn be part of an overarching explanation of the formation of stars and planets. Eventually we all are “star stuff” as even Cardinal Schonborn agrees (see his Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith which I’ve quoted in the past). Probably a good book on the formation of earth would be Dalrymple’s latest: Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings. I don’t have this one yet but I have his 1991 book on the age of the earth.

Dawkins relates in his negative review of “Expelled” :

“Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing to do with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists are actively working on. By way of example, Ruse could have chosen any of a number of current theories. He chose just one (it would have taken too long to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties such a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of crystals in inorganic clays. At no time did Ruse say he believed the Cairns-Smith theory, only that it was the KIND of theory that scientists are actively examining, as a CANDIDATE for the origin of evolution.” ("Lying for Jesus?" – Dawkins on ‘Expelled’)

For information on origin of life studies, and scientific hypothesis that are testable, see these Talk Origins pages:

Abiogenesis FAQs

An article on Cairns-Smith from Wikipedia gives some background on this organic chemist. His book is titled Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (Cambridge Univ Press, 1990). Additional article on Mars, Panspermia, and the Origin of Life with references. Other recent books you might check out on the topic:

Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin by Robert Hazen (John Henry Press, 2007)
The Emergence of Life on Earth by Iris Fry (Rutgers Univ Press, 2000)
The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology by P.L. Luisi (Cambridge Univ Press, 2006)

Need more? Search Amazon.com for “origin of life” or visit your local university library, the science section.

Phil P

 

[diligio]

I read a review of this movie which I thought made an excellent point. Science is a method of using models do describe what we observe and make predictions. If a theory fails to describe observations then it will either be modified to account for the discrepancy or rejected. If a theory does not allow for predictions then it is useless. This is why “scientists” who seek to discredit evolution are rarely acknowledged in the scientific community. The “Intelligent design” theory does not contribute to the predictions scientists can make. In addition, rejecting evolution rejects not only a large body of evidence but it also rejects the ability of the evolution model to account for whatever the basis for the rejection was. Creationists may say whatever they like, but scientists will not listen to them unless they have something both accurate and useful to say. I.e. Science and the freedom of speech are not the same thing.

 

[PhilVaz]

onetrue << Everyone in the audience hooted and snorted when Dawkins said life could have come from that crystal or the UFO. >>

First, once again, it was Michael Ruse on the “crystals” (see above post).

It was Richard Dawkins at the end on “aliens.” He explains himself better in his negative review of "Expelled."

The audience only hooted and snorted since they are totally unfamiliar with Dawkins’ books. At that point Dawkins was trying to be “sympathetic” with ID, and suggested IF (a big if) life was somehow seeded here by another intelligence, that intelligence itself would have evolved by natural means. He has mentioned this in The God Delusion and other of his writings. So he limits “intelligences” to the universe itself. Eventually, at same point, there has to be a natural explanation for everything, since he is a naturalist / materialist.

But note that he himself does not buy into the "directed panspermia" idea, it was suggested in the past by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick.

You are not gonna learn anything about science from a 10 second sound bite in answer to a question that requires a 700 page book. You’re gonna have to get to a university library and take out about 50 books on the topic (My method of learning about something).

Phil P

 

[Monty_Arch]

Bennie,

(1) Saying “just a theory” indicates you don’t fully understand what theory is, and how theory relates to facts. Theories are of a higher order than facts, in that they offer explanatory frameworks through which we interpret facts. …
Petrus

Darwinism is a theory of a possible mechanism that drives evolution. Evolution is regarded as fact by the scientific community.

According to Douglas J. Futuyma, in Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15 makes the following comment:

*"A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century. "
*

 

[Bean61]

Darwinism is a theory of a possible mechanism that drives evolution. Evolution is regarded as fact by the scientific community.

According to Douglas J. Futuyma, in Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15 makes the following comment:

*"A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century. "
*

Monty,
Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I have at least four books by authors trained in Biology and evolution that will tell you “Evolution” is not a fact and it never has been a fact. Darwinians could believe it as it is a theory, but not me.

I answered you without any fact present in my side of this question, but then that’s how you answered your side of the question.

Now I do believe that a Lab. has been descended from a wolf. This would go along with animals that have common ancestors. However, the most important point is that they are both dogs. This knowledge, under no circumstances, proves evolution to be a fact.

What you have presented, with or without you knowing it, is more double-talk from a typical Darwinist.

The more I hear the more I doubt the validity of anything a Darwinist says.

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I have at least four books by authors trained in Biology and evolution that will tell you “Evolution” is not a fact and it never has been a fact. Darwinians could believe it as it is a theory, but not me. >>

What books would those be? Name the authors, give me the page numbers, and I will look them up.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending how you understand “fact” and “theory.”

If a “fact” is a well-confirmed observation, evolution is a fact. It has been directly observed in a Laboratory, new species have evolved. This is commonly called “microevolution.” If a “fact” is defined as something lke “the earth goes around the sun, and takes a year to do it” then evolution would also be considered a fact in that bigger sense. Here we are talking evolution as “common descent” or “macroevolution” which the 2004 International Theological Commission statement signed by Cardinal Ratzinger has called “virtually certain” :

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ("Communion and Stewardship" ITC statement 2004)

What they call virtually certain is common descent or macroevolution.

Stephen Jay Gould also on evolution as fact and theory:

“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 don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome…In science “fact” can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent [or assent].’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.” (Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Discover magazine, May 1981)

According to how scientists understand “fact” and “theory” evolution is both.

If “fact” is supposed to mean absolute or 100% certainty, then no scientific theory is a fact. This article on "scientific proof" explains why.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << Now I do believe that a Lab. has been descended from a wolf. This would go along with animals that have common ancestors. However, the most important point is that they are both dogs. >>

If Labs are descended from Wolves, then what are Wolves descended from?

Answer this question and you go a long way to accepting common descent as true (i.e. as a “fact”).

Wolf Evolution or
Evolution of the Wolf

All about the Gray Wolf (wikipedia)

Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs (National Geographic)

Phil P