Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 4

Or is there a rule on this page that no change can be made without first posting it on the talk page?
This reversion of my changes to this article was made with instructions to discuss my changes on the talk page. The reverting party did not point to any error in or problem with my changes. So I am at a loss regarding what I am supposed to discuss. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording is perfectly fine the way it is, changes like that to the opening sentence SHOULD be discussed. I felt your changes was unnecessary. — raeky ( talk 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * O.k., so I've learned at Talk:Evolution that "unnecessary" means adding "fluff and extra unnecessary words." In this article the changes I made removed fluff and unnecessary words. So does "unnecessary" have a different meaning here? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia of course assumes good faith with the majority of it's editors, and it encourages people to be bold in their edits, but in this instance I found your changes to fundamentally change much of the meaning of the initial sentence. When you have an article like this one that theres probably hundreds of people watching and editing it the initial sentences have gone though MANY revisions to arrive at what we have today. To fundamentally change it's wording in such a bold way SHOULD be done AFTER consensus has been obtained on the talk page. I felt that your changes should be undone until such consensus is obtained, instead of arguing why they was removed, lets discuss why you think your changes are better then what was already there? — raeky ( talk 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is that I don't see my changes as "fundamentally" changing the wording. However, rather than argue that point I'll take up your suggestion to go through those changes on this page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Which meaning of evolution is intended, if it is not explicit, can be discerned by the context."
This is the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro to this article. I propose to delete for two reasons: First, it is wrong (there is the possibility that the meaning will not be explicit or discernable from the context). Second, it says something that is obvious. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The issues I had with your edits are:
 * you took away the wording "fact of evolution"
 * the purpose of the article is to explain the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory" not to confuse people about their uses in Evolution. Evolution isn't in question here. Your edits made it sound like there was question about the "fact of" evolution.
 * your edits on Evolution also seem to indicate that there is doubt to the "fact of evolution" with your inserting links to it casting doubt.
 * The purpose of this article isn't about the Creationism or any of it's beliefs, it's about explaining the scientific definitions of "Fact of evolution" and "Theory of evolution." It has nothing to do with any doubts in the "theory" or "fact". — raeky ( talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The points you raise are something I look forward to discussing in the future. However, the issue in this section of this talk page is whether the sentence "Which meaning of evolution is intended, if it is not explicit, can be discerned by the context." should be deleted from the introductory paragraph of this article. Do you have an opinion regarding that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is in part to the above conversation: Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Stating that just the word "evolution" when written could be referring to the fact or theory part and that one needs to look at how it's used in context to ascertain which the author is meaning. It's common for writers to shorten evolutionary theory to just evolution, causing some confusion. The sentence you refer to instructs the reader that context of how it's used is important to the figure out the authors meaning. I think it might be worded better, but to wholesale delete it I'm not sure. — raeky ( talk 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that something can be both wrong and obvious. I agree with Raeky that the sentence is important. i also know Butwhatdoiknow is making a good faith suggestion. here is what I propose: change the word "can" to "should." Would both of you accept this? If so please make the change and we can move on. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is potentially worded better, I do see his concern that the sentence as a whole in it's current placement could be confusing. I don't think it needs expanding out to multiple sentences to say what I said above though that may be to much. If Buthwhatdoiknow accepts your suggestion it would be fine by me. — raeky ( talk 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The change is fine by me, the sentence will then be both correct and obvious. I still don't see why it is necessary to include in this article a fourth grade reading lesson (i.e., context is important to determine the meaning of a word) and I don't read Raeky as being all that sure that it should be included. Sirubenstein, can you explain why you believe it is "important"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question, deserves an answer. The answer is the sae reason why we even have this article. The answer it, the article on Evolution explains this in a way that anyone with a fourth grade education should be able to understand, and yet we regularly get talk on the talk page that says EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY YOU ARE BIASED TO HAVE AN ARTICLE ON A BELIEF THAT CLAIMS IT IS A FACT WHEN IT IS JUST A BELIEF AND WHY DON"T YOU INCLUDE THE OTHER SIDE YOU ARE BIASED. Or something to that effect. So we have to send them to this article.  And since they need to go here and read this, we need to explain everything as explicitly as possible even if we think it is obvious, because "obviously" it is obvious to us and not to everyone else.  Writing for an audience of every English-speaking person with access to the internet and that means explaining things that are obvious to us because we have to admit, the whole world is not like us and something that is obvious to us may not be obvious to someone else, and it is precisely THAT someone else a good encyclopedia article is directed to, not those of us who already know so much we can write encyclopedia articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see. Thank you. Let me cogitate a bit and see whether I can come up with an alternate version that includes a hint regarding why it is there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's important to keep in mind these pages are nit-picked over by every nut-bag (probably not the most sensitive word to describe them) with an internet connection. That is why we need plenty of these types of pages that break it down into very simple English so they can try to maybe understand the scientific method and scientific uses of words like "fact" and "theory." It also means we have to be very careful about who is inserting subtle changes into the meaning/context these pages to prevent the "nut-bags" from trying to undermine the purpose of these pages for their own agendas. — raeky ( talk 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed replacement
Here is a first draft of text to replace the current sentence:
 * People using the word "evolution" do not always make clear which of these two meanings they intend to convey. This essay provides tools for discerning the meaning of the word from the context in which it is used.

Am I anywhere close to the meaning and purpose of the current sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am relunctant to accept that "evolution is both fact and theory" necessarily implies a double meaning for the word evolution, even though I would agree it is often meant this way. To my mind it is perfectly reasonable to describe a single concept such as "dinasaurs existed" as both fact and theory without invoking multiple meanings. — Axel147 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. 'Evolution's single meaning simply encompasses both the factual and the theoretic components, in the same way that 'gravity' encompasses both Newtonian (and later Einsteinian) theoretical constructs, as well as the fact that if you drop something, it falls. I think any statement that had the implication that 'evolution as theory' and 'evolution as fact' were talking about two separate meanings of 'evolution' would be misleading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Howsabout "When the term evolution is used to refer to theory about the fact rather than the occurrence itself, this usage is normally clear from its context." . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an improvement over the initial proposal, in that it isn't misleading. It is however sufficiently convoluted that I suspect it would confuse many readers. I would suggest "Whether 'evolution' is being used to refer to a theory or the underlying facts, is usually clear from the context" as less convoluted. But is it clear from the context? Such contexts as macroevolution, natural selection and transitional fossils can all be about fact, theory or (more commonly) a combination of both. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the original phrasing, I would suggest "Whether evolution is intended to mean facts, the theories constructed to explain these facts, or (as is quite common) both these aspects, should be determined from the context."HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier in the intro the article says "The point of this statement is to distinguish the two meanings of evolution." So I would build upon Hfrfn's suggestion to propose:
 * People using the word "evolution" do not always make clear whether they intend to refer to the facts, the theories constructed to explain these facts, or (as is quite common) both these aspects. In such cases the meaning should be determined from the context in which the word is used."

Better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still getting my head around this, so apologies if I'm haring off in all directions. But how often would scientists not be talking about both? The scientific view would tend to be that facts are only useful to the extent that they validate/falsify hypotheses or theories and hypotheses and theories are only useful to the extent that they explain facts. I'd think it would be rare that they would discuss one without the other being at least in the back of their mind. Should the default be to assume both unless the context clearly demonstrates one or other? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well look at it from a creationist point of view, i.e. evolution is only a theory, they would take exception to it being defined as a fact. I think any explanation here should be to explain that when used scientifically evolution theory is a distillate of the observable facts to explain them. The original sentence I think is only adding confusion to this. I agree with you, Hrafn, that from the scientists point of view the use of evolution is going to mean both the facts and theory in most instances. They would present their findings (facts) then discuss how it supports or doesn't support the current theory. I'd imagine most uses of the word Evolution in a scientific paper would be meaning the theory and how their findings supports it or not, imho. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking it through further, in a high school environment evolution would also probably cover both facts and theory. I suspect that a teacher would teach the facts because theory on its own would be too dry, but also the theory as well, as facts without theory lacks a narrative. How about "Evolution in most contexts means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts."


 * "The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion may mean just the theory or just the facts depending on context." Would be my change to it... A lot of discussion for one sentence ;-) — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. One sentence maybe -- but the sort of sentence that can come back to kick us in the teeth if worded carelessly. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts depending on context."


 * OK by me. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only change I would suggest would be from "The use of the word "evolution" in most cases means ..." to "Most people use the word "evolution" to mean ..." (which, I guess, would result in "but may on occasion mean" becoming "but the word may also be used to mean"). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain why you would use "Most people" those words are borderline weasel words... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most people use ..." provides an actor (and is no more - or, admittedly, less - weasely than the passive voice phrase "The use ... in most cases means"). I suppose you could change it to "People most often use ..." (still weasely, but less obviously so). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Evolution in most contexts means the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion mean just the theory or just the facts." sounds unnecessarily wordy, and it is a complex sentence I think would put off many readers. I honestly see nothing wrong with what we have: my view is, if it is accurate and simple, keep it. To answer an early question, in many high school biology classes or first year biology classes in college in the US, where I was educated, many students are presented only with the very basics of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and are introduced to Mendelian genetics separately, i.e. they do not get "the modern synthesis" as such. This is why so many creationists believe in "microevolution" - they had to learn about Mendle and peas at some point, and know that two brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed kid. But aside from Darwin's finches (which was the effect of speciation, Darwin did not observe speciation as it was occuring), this is what most people get. I have since been teaching in the UK and given how students begin specializing around age 15, most university students I meet who are not in the life sciences don't even know Darwin's theory (although they will of course tell you they believe in it). Many students, even graduate (p/g) students who train in biology learn a set of laboratory techniques and the phylogenetic tree - theya re trained to describe organisms and analyze the functioning of organs or hormones or ensymes, and it can get very technical ... it is not hard for a student to get advanced training in biology without studying evolution (as "fact") as such. It is really relevant only to those who plan on conducting research relevant to evolutionary theory, or in ecology. Conversely, the articles Wikipedia cites that contain the actual research documenting evolution in process, I mean speciation, like the hawthorne fly, do not recapitulate evolutionary theory. They take it for granted, they assume their readers (these journals are aimed at other PhD.s) know basic evolutionary theory or they wouldn't be reading the article. These articles describe the local ecology, the life history of the organisms in question, their location in the food chain, and what data they have on specific gene frequencies, and this is plenty for a journal article to document that two species are emerging where there used to be one because a new niche opened up. I really doubt that anyone can infer the modern synthesis/evolutionary "theory" from that, unless they already know it. I vote for keeping it as it is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, the issue here is the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to this article. Slrubenstein evidently believes that sentence is fine "as is." I - as a reader encountering it for the first time a couple of days ago - thinks the sentence is distracting because leads readers to wonder why such a generic English lesson would appear in this article. To solve that problem, a few of us have been working on modifying the language to include some explanatory text. The current proposal seems to be to replace the current sentence with the following sentence (with the liberty taken of dropping the "depending on the context" clause from the end):
 * People most often use the word "evolution" to mean the combination of both the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may on occasion use the word to mean just the theory or just the facts.

Once those of us who are interested in changing the text agree on wording we can put the proposed change to a vote. (With the expectation that Slrubenstein will vote "no.") Meanwhile, are there any suggested improvements to the language above? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added the cross out with the idea of making the sentence simpler. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this whole page is for the _very basic_ concepts of the definition of 'theory' and 'fact.' Most people of some science education will know instinctively what they are, but they're here because Joe Blow general public doesn't and questions it all the time. I don't agree though with Slrubenstein that it is fine the way it is, I think it's a bit confusing when your looking it at the prospective of Joe Blow. Simplifying it down to 3rd grade level of English is probably ideal in the case of this article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the first paragraph including the last sentence and do not see what Butwhatdoiknow sees. I agree with Raeky about keeping things simple.  If there is a way to make it simpler but just as accurate, I would be fine with that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion
Here is my suggested wording to replace the lead:
 * The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur. On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them.

I find the current wording to be quite mysterious, and I suspect I understood it only because I already knew about the theory/fact divide. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you still need something to the effect that sometimes the text does not explicitly say which one, and you have to try to figure it out from context. In part, this is one reason for this article - to help teach readers how to do that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, in cases where the text doesn't explicitly say one or other, it will most probably mean both. I'm reasonably happy with Johnuniq's wording. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I respectfully request you read more journl articles ant college textbooks (please se my explanaton in the section above). i just disagree - in fact, I think the only real reason for this article is that there are so many sources that are mean one or the other but are not clear, which can confuse readers.  Why even have this article, when the Evolution article is so much bette?  It is because there is one point that confuses many readers.  It won't help starting by ignoring or dismissing their confusion, we should try to help. 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put my wording in the article because there is the beginning of a consensus, and it might help to see it "live". Here is a possible alternative for the last sentence, if anyone likes the mention of "context":
 * On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts and the theory that explains them, but may occasionally refer to just the known facts, or just the explanatory theory. The context where "evolution" is used should make its meaning clear.

I don't think we have to say everything in the lead, so I did not include it. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not hung up on the word context as such. I just think this sentence "On its own, the word "evolution" usually refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them." is inaccurate.  This sentnce: "On its own, the word "evolution" usually implies the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them." may be accurate.  But I have read too many articles where evolution refers to one, or the other, and does not make it clear.  I fear that the current wording can only increase conusion for whom this material is relatively new. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, help us out here. What text would you propose? (Here is one approach: "On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Butwhatdoiknow's suggestion. Perhaps others can improve upon it, but it is accurate, clear and direct, my main criteria, so it is fine by me! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concern regarding first paragraph
I think everyone has to be careful because as far as I'm concerned most of the confusion is caused by fact being used in 2 ways rather than evolution. And I'm afraid to say I rather blame Gould for this. I'm sure he meant well with his simplistic "facts and theories are different things" but really this is a dreadful simplification. The whole process of understanding, the whole scientific method is not just a 2 dimensional enterprise where facts are things we observe and theories are explanations. When we say "dinosaurs existed" is a fact we don't necessarily mean we can go out and see one in our garden (or that any human has ever directly observed one), but it doesn't stop us feeding this fact into an explanatory model about how dinosaurs lived. In other words the whole explanation process is hierarchical. We start out establishing the basics as fact. Then we speculate test and observe and eventually our new hypotheses are rejected or so firmly established that they also become fact. This is a new foundation from which we are able to build further.

Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this (otherwise why would creationists get upset!). In the article itself Dawkins, Futyuma, Campbell, Muller, National Academy of Sciences are completely clear about this. "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it. That's much more like it. That is what all the fuss about! The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly. — Axel147 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Axel, do you have language to propose to fix the problem? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article shouldn't cater to the fundamentalist crowd. Of course people who believe women was made from a rib, theres talking snakes and all that crap are never going to be convinced, so we shouldn't even try. The scientific community agrees "evolution is a fact" because theres 150 years of empirical data that backs it up and virtually squat that disputes it. It's inconceivable any new evidence could be uncovered that would wholesale dismiss the theory so it's as good as a fact. This may be a core problem with the article as a whole. We're not going to "win over" the people who believe in supernatural beings, if the bible said the world was flat they wouldn't buy all the scientific data that it isn't either, no matter how true it is. If this article is simply to "rub in their faces" the fact of evolution, it's pointless. As it is now it does a decent job of explaining the context of how "fact of evolution" and "theory of evolution" are used. I donno, I'm sorta ranting, but I think this could easily spiral out of control and expand this topic/issue beyond where it needs to go. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Raeky, I do not think that this is what Axel meant. I note that Gould remains a reliable source, but Axel makes very valuable points. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not sure I have the language to fix. But really I'm just trying to make the article as clear as possible rather than catering to any particular crowd. My point is this


 * If people are able to walk away believing evolution is fact on account of trait differences observed in the lab without also being fully committed to the idea that man and monkey are cousins, then this article has failed in its duty and creationists have won the war of words.


 * I'm not saying here it is the article's job to convince people evolution is a fact. But it absolutely must present head-on that in most of the cited references "evolution is a fact" means something big! It encapsulates common ancestry, speciation. It is something creationists should want to reject. To reduce "evolution is fact" to narrow experimental observations even if they are reproducible without any further inference is to miss the point. It is also not true most of the citations quoted here. — Axel147 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may, I think there are two "facts" salient to Axel's point (and it doesn't matter what you think about creationists - what Axel and I hope I are saying is motivated by what we think about science): first, it is a fact that speciation though natural selection has been observed in the field. But more important, it is a fact that we and chimpanzees have a common ancestor and evolved into different species not because this has been demonstrated in a lab or observed to happen in the field, but because the power of the theory of evolution to direct scientists to important data and to make sense of that data is such that this interpretation of the data is so convincing that all scientists consider it a fact as much as anything that a person can "see" for themselves, in the lab or in the field.  I think Axel's point, and he is right, is that what makes a scientific fact a "fact" is not just that one has eye-witnessed it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even in a lab, a "fact" is not generally directly observed, but rather filtered through layers of equipment, that usually themselves rely on layers of underlying theories. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I completely agree with you. Most of the people quoted in the article are using fact as hypothesis/inference so highly substantiated with evidence for practical purposes we accept it as true. And yes maybe all facts fit into this description: whatever we consider "the world's data" our observations always depend on assumptions or bits of theory about our measuring instruments.


 * So I guess the original point is if a reasonable number of people use "evolution is a fact" as a shorthand for "man and monkey have a common ancestor" we have to be careful saying in the opening paragraph, "fact of evolution refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred." — Axel147 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this goes back to the fact (!) that the concept "fact" has two different meanings, and both are relevant to this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the intro neds to be rewritten, but I do think that the explanation of "fact" needs to be explained. The emeregence of the hawthorne fly is one example of an observed change.  But the fossil record also enables us to observe changes over time, as does DNA evidence fvrom different species, and comparative anatomy.  I think Axel's point is that these kinds of data are as much "the fact of evolution in action" as the observation of the emergence of the hawthorne fly over a fifty year period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't a fact that mankind and apes have a common ancestor, evolution would still be a readily observable fact as many instances from peppered moth evolution onwards demonstrate. The demonstrations that speciation occurs imply that humans could also have common descent from other species, and numerous facts in various fields support that implication. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the solution to remove "the observed" from the sentence? (So it reads "First, the "fact of evolution" refers to changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Authors of encyclopedias are editors. The issue here is not some trick of editing a sentence.  Our task is to communicate to people that evolution is a fact, by any definition of "fact" that most people have in their head.  It is also to explain to people what a "scientific fact" is and how evolution refers to what scientists mean by "facts."  Axel was very clear in his first post that "fact being used in 2 ways."  The problem - his point - is that it is not clear about these two ways.  Let's put aside the right wording of the introduction for now anf make sure that the body of the article does just this.  We need a section with examples of one kind of fact - observable changes in gene frequencies, including observable speciation as in the Hawthorne flie.  But we also need another section explaining that what we observe never speaks for itself, that facts are not just what we see, that theories provide frameworks for deciding what facts are.  The article needs to do both of these things effectively, then we can rewrite the introduction to reflect this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Axel's original remarks concluded with "The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly." I thought that is the problem we are trying to solve. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute that. But introduction introduce the article as a whole.  A change to one implies a change to the other.  It makes sense to make sure that Axel's point is well-communicated in the body, and then we can figure out the best way to summarize it in the introduction.  I say this because i do not think Axel's point was just about phrasing; his point was about how the phrasing has very substantial implications about the content of the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this article is to provide background for the statement "evolution is a fact and a theory". The various meanings of "theory" and "fact" should be explored, and the article should clearly state that the "theory of evolution" is a fact in the everyday meaning of the word. However, there are no words to convince creationists; all we can do is present inviting, reliably sourced material that may entice the uncommitted to think for themselves. A didactic introduction would not be encyclopedic, and it would be a poor tactic.
 * Slrubenstein's approach is correct: Get the article right, and worry about the introduction later. About the only problem with the article is that it is a little long winded. Its sheer length invites doubt as to whether "evolution is a fact". However, I wouldn't want much removed. Perhaps the "Evolution, fact and theory" first para could have another sentence addressing the question "is evolution true?", although that would defeat what I just said about tactics. --Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I too agree with agree with Slrubenstein's approach. I think he is also right that 'evolution is a fact, by any definition of "fact" that most people have in their head' and therefore it is probably better not to overemphasize any one of these definitions in the opening. (Quite a few of the words in the current article were originally penned by me so I'm quite happy now to sit back and express my thoughts and let others do the editing!) — Axel147 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A general reminder.
Help:Editing. I can say no more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "the observed"
Those who want to improve the body of this article are free to do so. Meanwhile, I see no reason why there should be a lock on editing the introduction. (Particularly since no one is actually making or proposing any particular edits to the body.) Changes to the introduction now will not prevent further changes after the body is improved.

With that in mind I propose that "the observed" be removed from the third sentence of this article. With that change the sentence will read: "First, the "fact of evolution" refers to changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred." Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've re-read this talk and don't see why removing "the observed" would be useful. I like how "observed" succinctly justifies the "known to have occurred" claim (recall that people will say they "know" some miracle occurred). Removing "observed" weakens the "evolution is fact" argument. I suppose there should be a reference; I might look for one later if you don't remove the term. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I am trying to solve is folks reading "the observed" and saying "oh, yes, micro-evolution, of course you can observe that." Or is that not much of a problem? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well macroevolution in the form of speciation is also observable, as are probably quite a few other things that don't fit with the "folks"'s worldview. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what the problem is. I've added a link to help folks like me understand the meaning of the word in this sentence. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite for "changes in populations of organisms over time"?
OK, but actually what I had in mind was a reliable source with examples of observations of "changes in populations of organisms over time". Does anyone know of a suitable reference, preferably a simple description suitable for the level of this article? Observed Instances of Speciation might be sufficient. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For why doesn't it say "of how"?
The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article reads: Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur. The use of the word "why" strikes me as somewhat theological. Is there some reason we shouldn't change the last clause to which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding the word "how." But I have to say I am mystified when you say that "why" strikes you as somewhat theological.  When I ask my kid why he was late to lunch, the answer need not have anything to do with intent (as in intelligent design), it is often a sequence of events over which he had no control.  But I'd be glad to know what others think.  If your point is that the articl ought not to suggest intentionality or telology I agree completely, I am just not entirely sure that "why" always implies this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is because Evolution is not supposed to explain WHY anything happens. WHY implies intent by its definition.  It implies cause. 69.207.144.13 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think why also refers to cause. Why is the sky blue? Ninahexan (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

falsified hypotheses
This is currently in the definition of scientific theory. This is Karl Popper's definition of a theory and is only one point of view. It is common among scientists, but it is not the only view and does not actually fit well with evolutionary theory. Other historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science have provided more refined definitions of theory. One of the best comes from Philip Kitcher (Kitcher was not trying to tell scientists what they should do - which was Karl Popper's intention in his definition; Kitcher is trying to describe what scientists really do). Kitcher agrees with Popper that "There is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail." He also takes into account Hempel and Quine's critiques of Popper, to the effect that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists we view scientific theories as an "elaborate collection of statements", some of which are not falsifiable, while others—those he calls "auxiliary hypotheses", are.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:
 * 1) Unity: "A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems" (1982: 47).
 * 2) Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–48).
 * 3) Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit).

Like other definitions of theories, including Popper's, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) "observational consequences". But, like the observation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible—and equally important—observational consequence.

I know this is to much, way too much to add to the article. But if only for NPOV sake (let alone accuracy) I think we should define theory in this article in a way that is consistent with Kirtcher and not just slavishly follow Popper. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While agreeing with much of what Kitcher says, I'm unsure of the extent to which this is a useful definition. For one thing, it would appear to require a lot of historical perspective -- by which time it is generally already widely accepted as to what was or was not a scientific theory. To that extent it would appear to be a descriptive rather than analytic definition. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, i tis a way more useful definition for biologists than the "falsifiable hypothesis" model which is used more by physicists. And it is a far more useful definition for understanding the theory of evolution.  What I wrote is not useful, because it is too long and wordy.
 * My poijnt is that we are using a definition of theory that many scientists do not use and that has been widely criticized by philosophers of science. Sooner or later there will be a careful reader who will only end up confused, trying to related this out-of-date defdinition of theory to actual research in evolution.  How about "A theory is a problem-solving strategy that can be applied to a wide range of phenomena, and generate new and frutiful questions to ask about the world.  It also generates claims that can be checked against empirical evidence."  Or something like that? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the 'falsification' becomes increasingly ambiguous a concept as you go further and further from a simple mathematical relationship between experimentally-measurable quantities. I would even agree that what Kitcher is talking about has more relevance for biology, I'm just not comfortable calling it a definition of a theory -- it feels more like 'hallmarks of' or 'signs of' (or similar looser term) a theory to me. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you. I would oppose anyedefinition of "theory" in this article.  How about a "description" or "account" of what scientists mean by "theory?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to remove this. The reason is didn't is because I already made substantial changes (improvements I think) to the article several months ago and at the time didn't want to upset other editors by continuing further. From where I stand the Popperian view is completely outdated and wrong. Lot's of scientific theories are probabilistic in nature. In other words they only predict what is likely to happen. If in a particular experiment the expected thing doesn't happen of course we cannot simply reject the theory. — Axel147 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Axel, does this mean you support my alternative? Or do you want to make your own proposal? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I particularly disagree with anything Kitcher says according to your summary (though for me rejecting a hypothesis and producing an alternative are 2 sides of the same coin rather than alternative outcomes). It seems fine. But I'm not not sure he's the authority on this? I think basically all this article can try to do here is make a summary point then refer people to the scientific method article. I'm not so comfortable with the suggestion the scientific method should be presented one way for physicists and a different way for biologists. So I think I'm all for changing the current couple of sentences on this if it replaced by something roughly consistent with the scientific method article and not too wordy. (I'll just sit back and not make any proposal is that's ok.) Hope that helps. — Axel147 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

True in addition to factual
I am wondering whether this article should discuss whether evolution is true — see Heat-the-Hornet,Richard-Dawkins? This is subtly different from discussing whether it is fact, theory or hypothesis. — Axel147 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why discuss something that has been supported and substantiated beyond scientific reproach? Take it to conservapedia if you want to talk about that. 69.207.144.13 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "true" issue is interesting, but I don't think this article is the place to do it. My understanding is that the whole point of this article is to explain the "fact and theory" label being applied to evolution. Bringing in "true" would send it in a different and less focused direction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ. It is also relevant to this article. Jomasecu talk <sub style="margin-left:-2.19em">contribs 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some inconsistencies in the article
The author(s) of the article have/has stated the definition of evolution as to avoid confusion and also have/has defined the term "fact". It is said that fact is a combination of verifiable observations and an established hypothesis. Evolution is counted as fact and yet it should only be a theory, according to those definitions. Evolution in descriptions 1 and 2 are/were not observed or completely verifiable hypotheses. No one has observed or recorded a true series of species change. Moreover, evolution is a theory because it is not so firmly supported by evidence, or it would not be opposed so strongly, and I am not referring to religious objections but scientific ones and philosophical ones.

There are no plausible objections to the concept of gravity or its reality, but there are objections given by scientists to "macro-evolution" (changing species/one common ancestor). Fruit flies do not change species, nor their future generations incredibly different. Evolution on a smaller scale is obviously consistent and verifiable, but evolution on a large scale is merely a theory and nothing more. --98.240.75.248 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Iracundiarock
 * I'm not sure you read the article completely. Scientific fact and theory are not mutually exclusive. That evolution happens is fact. How it works is theory. Speciation has, in fact, been observed. Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Jomasecu talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex">contribs 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying fact and theory for me. But the examples on the list of the evolution talk page are not very informative. If you have time, could you please give me some examples, just a few, of observed speciation? So far, I am keeping the original opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracundiarock (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ira, are you using "theory" in the non-scientific or the scientific sense? Also, are you using "observed" in the non-scientific or the scientific sense? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Evolution/FAQ Jomasecu talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex">contribs 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The speciation of the hawthorne fly has been observed. But so what?  Astronomer's never observd the big bang but it is considered a fact because all the data support it, it is far more than a theory, it is a fact in terms of the domiant tneories of physics and astronomy.Scienstis claim as facts all sorts of things that are not direcly observed.  So what? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am talking about it in the scientific sense. It cannot be tested, but it can be used as an explanation until something more plausible comes along. Also, just because scientists say it is true does not mean it is. Many Greek and Dark Age scientists who were not religious viewed the sun to go around the earth, but they were reprimanded by only a small group of people who held true knowledge based on facts and not opinions. -IRACUNDIAROCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.75.248 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Big Bang example above was sort of poor. Redshift as measured in galaxies which are distant from Earth is a fact. The Big Bang, that is the explanation that this redshift implies the universe started from a point and expanded outwards, is a theory. Evolution is a fact, in the sense that changes in species over time have been observed as clearly as one can observe anything. The theory is in the explanation of these changes. This is pretty much covered in the lead... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that there are many scientific facts that are not known through direct observation. IRACUNDIAROCK it sounds like you do not know what the scientific sense is as you are not making sense.  Theories have observational consequences and the theory of evolution does, and those consequences match up with what the theory says.  In any event the hawthorne fly is a "test" it is speciation observed as it occurs.  AS to your claims about older scientists I am not sure what you mean.  Science as we mean it did not really egin until Bacon and Galileo.  Who are you talking about? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the fact of evolution has been tested. For example, evolution predicted that future fossil discoveries would unearth "transitional" fossils between land mammals and whales (a concept scoffed at by creationists). The test is what came out of the ground. As it turns out, evolution passed that test. See The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence. In fact, evolution has passed every test that every applicable field of study has thrown at it. That is why there is no debate in the scientific community regarding the fact of gradual change over billions of years (i.e., the fact of evolution). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case someone misinterprets what you're saying, let it be clear that whales are only one of a huge number of examples of the fossil evidence showing transitions from early forms to current forms of organisms. Since this will be a moving target, they creationist community will move from cetaceans to some other animal where transitional fossils aren't yet available.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, it doesn't matter that we have transitional fossils for cetaceans. I think there are two related points, that are relevant to "evolution as theory."  The first is that it was considered an overwhelmingly powerful theory by most natural scientists within decades of its publication and many many decades before transitional fossils were found for all sorts of species - what we want to do is explain things in such a way that people can understand why it was such a great theory before those discoveries.  The second issue is that a good theory has observational consequences.  I think this is the real point behind Butwhatdidiknow's comment - even if there are species that currently exist from whom we have no transitional fossils yet, the fact remains that the theory has observational consequencies that currently direct research in fruitful ways. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this Article
After reading this article, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose of having it is. According to my understanding of Wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong) articles should correspond to real world issues/events, so I guess I'm wondering is there is there a real world debate about evolution as theory and fact, cause as it is now the article just reads like a take that against creationism, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of any issue. There is already an article on the word Theory, most of it taken up by the scientific use of the word, so why don't we have an article on what theory and fact means in science rather than specifically about evolution, which just causes endless edit wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.239.233 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed there is a real world issue. It is a common creationist claim that evolution is "only a theory" and therefore no more valid than any other "theory" somebody might think up. This is not a claim that is made regarding other scientific theories, thus the emphasis on evolution. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that the existence of two separate meanings of "evolution" causes a great deal of confusion and this article aids those who are new to the field to understand that there are two separate meanings and to distinguish between the two. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there are not two "meanings" of evolution. The article  is here to make certain that the word "theory" isn't abused, as it is by creationists.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of this article says "evolution" is used in two ways - should we be looking at changing that sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the original and principal authors of this article, allow me to give you some historical perspective. This article was created to examine this important issue in its own article. Before, this issue was addressed in several other articles, including evolution and one with a title something like "Evolution-creationism controversy". In the interests of completeness and compactness, this article was created.

Contrary to what has been stated above, the subject addressed in this article is of vital and central importance in the debate between evolution and creationists. The most common argument that creationists use against evolution is that it is "only a theory". This argument has formed the basis of numerous lawsuits, including at least one that reached the US Supreme Court. This argument is prominent in creationist literature, creationist speeches, sermons, propaganda, museums and books.

The fallacy of this creationist argument is addressed in hundreds of articles and books written by evolutionary scientists, including several published by the National Academy of Sciences. So not only is this argument important to creationists, but to those defending against creationist attacks, and to the legal system as well.

The reason that this argument fails is of course that it rests on several types of confusion. It is imperative that any enterprise which has pretensions of producing a scholarly reference work like Wikipedia expose and reveal the confusions that fuel this argument and controversy.

This article has a partially rewritten version in sandbox form. The sandbox version is far cleaner with more references and the references are better organized. I would ask our frantic deletionists above not to get too giddy and full of themselves before they understand the reason this article exists, and something about the history that gave rise to this article, and plans for this article in the future.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What does one have to do to take part of the rewriting process and to learn of the plans for the future? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Curses, Boris, has he discovered our secret laboratory? dave souza, talk 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a moat which keeps the anti-science hoards from crashing our Darwin's Birthday party. Since they believe in miracles, prayers, and homeopathic potions, they won't be able to figure out how to cross it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the implication that much of the political controversy over evolution is just a semantics issue stemming from creationist ignorance. When an opponent of evolution argues against the factuality of evolution, I don't think he or she is saying that theories cannot be comprised of facts which lead to the formulation of the theory. In my observation it seems more often that the supporters of evolution are trying to label the overall theory as fact due to the facts that do indeed comprise it, and the opponents of the theory protest this assertion. You wont find any legitimate creation scientists or ID proponents arguing against facts like natural selection or homology in bones. I think the controversy stems from the interpretations of facts. A naturalist might observe similarities in bones structures of different organisms and conclude that the fact that similarites exist is strong evidence for a common anscestor. This is obviously a reasonable, scientific conclusion. However, it seems to me that those hostile to the opponents of evolution misunderstand the fact that supporters of opposing theories do not argue the existence of evidence, but rather what the evidence implies. A creation scientist would look at homology and conclude that is strong evidence for a common designer(s), an equally reasonable, scientific conclusion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that both sides seem more obsessed with making the other look ignorant or stupid than trying carry out a mature, scientific discussion. That is why I think that the idea being that the purpose of this article is to enlighten people about idiotic creationist fallacies is not neutral. Both sides fall into the trap as evolution refer to the overall theory as fact. I agree with the idea that a better purpose for this article would be to simply clarify generically how theories can be made up of numerous facts and still be only labelled as theories. Obviously this concept is an issue looming over evolution, so it could still be mentioned as a prime example, but I feel the article it better suited in the generic sense. Otherwise I agree with the author of the unsigned comment toward the top of the page that "the article just reads like a take that against creationism, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of any issue" and that it "just causes endless edit wars?" Gubdognerd (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact and Theory
The distinction between 'theory' and 'fact' used on this page cannot be sustained, as shown by Duhem, Collingwood, Quine, Kuhn and others. For instance: "The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other..." This 'fact' is entirely dependent upon our current theory of gravity -- Aristotle, for instance, would not have taken this to be a fact at all, but a falsehood! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The people you mentioned are not scientists, but philosophers and mathematicians, and as such are not qualified to make such statements. Furthermore, they lived some time ago, and thus even if they were qualified, their ideas would be out of date.  Also - the fact of gravity is NOT dependant on the current theory.  I don't know where you got that idea. Farsight001 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only theories; those which are very likely and those which are less likely. The entire basis of this article is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. <font style="color:#000080;">Andrew Nutter  <font style="background:#000080;"> <font style="color:#FFFFFF"> Talk | <font style="color:#FFFFFF"> Contribs 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read at least the first paragraph of an article before you criticize it.Quietmarc (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is. Attributed to Jan L.A. Van de Snepscheut, but also often attributed to Yogi Berra. So... if someone said something a long time ago, it must be false (if he's a philosopher anyway, but I thought this article was a philosophical one in the first place.. isn't it???)? Or maybe the old-timey statement could be true but just not as ... stylish maybe?


 * Is there such a thing as a historical fact? "empirical" fact?


 * Is it a "scientific fact" that
 * I dropped a ball from 100 feet this morning, and it accelerated to earth according to X formula; or
 * Whenever one drops a ball from 100 feet, it accelerates to earth according to X formula.


 * "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein SixPurpleFish (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * it is not a "scientific fact," it is just a "fact." Slrubenstein  |  Talk


 * Sorry, what does "it" in your response refer to ? SixPurpleFish (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I didn't much care for the label "scientific fact" either but it seems to be in usage in Wikipedia. SixPurpleFish (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS Kuhn received his Ph.D in physics from Harvard and only died about ten years ago. Although he is guilty of being a philosopher as charged. SixPurpleFish (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't know why you think you're making good points. Kuhn has a PhD in physics.  So?  That's not evolution.  In fact, among the sciences, that's about as far from evolution as you can get.  Honestly...I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Farsight001 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Biologists are experts on things like pandas and bamboo. They are not experts on the philosophy of science. I think when it comes to definitions of theory and fact, we have to rely on the experts, i.e. philosophers of science. Kuhn is widely regarded as one of the most important historians of science in the 20th century and without a doubt his claims about the nature of science and core concepts in science such as theory and fact are significant enough to take notice of. If we would ecpct a philosopher to defer to a biologist on a topic like endocrynology or whatever, biologists should defer to philosophers on their areas of expertise. That said, I think most philosophers would agree with August Compte that "facts" exist in relation to some theory. That there is a relationship does not mean they are the same and philosophers recognize a difference between theory and fact. And I do not think any mainstream philosopher of science questions that "evolution" refers to both a theory and a set of facts. What is the problem? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So by your logic a Physics PhD should be an expert on things like Laser beams and molecules. How does that make their definitions more qualified than another scientist?  Furthermore the philosophical nature of Kuhn's writing puts far too much qualitative emphasis on what is essentially a very clear and widely agreed upon definition in the scientific community.  Dragging Kuhn into this is likely just going to obfuscate what is otherwise a clear and concise statement.  I'm assuming in good faith that wasn't your goal.Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to comply with our NPOV policy, see my reply to Farsight below. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the misconception that this article is about the philosophy of science. It is not.  Philosophers have their definition of theory and fact, and scientists have their own.  Since this is an article regarding evolution, a science, we are using the scientific definitions, not the philosophical ones.Farsight001 (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok...something weird just happened with the edits - the users that certain posts were attributed to seem to have "magically" changed...or am I hallucinating? Farsight001 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am under the correct "conception" that Wikipedia articles have to present all significant views. Evolutionary scientists may have their own views as to the difference beetween fact and theory, but historians of science and philosophers of science also research and publish on the difference between fact and theory in science, so their views must be included as well. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic problem, Far, is that you don't understand "the philosophy of science" and frankly, not even a little bit. Actually, you deny that it exists, or even that it can exist. You won't understand that comment, so don't try.
 * Quite remarkable to think that the philosophers of science would not even attempt to define what is meant by theory and fact in science, or that all they say is basically claptrap. More remarkable to think that they would spend so much time defining terms like theory or even paradigm or anomaly that have no relation to actual science. SixPurpleFish (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I find this argment silly, the article is basically about the following: By "fact" in this article, we're referring to the physically observed science, which is undisputed fact, scientific or otherwise. How all these facts tie together into a single unified theory of evolution, is the theory. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * dinosaur bones and other fossils are found in the ground, fact.
 * the older the rocks the simpler the organisms found in them become, fact.
 * dna changes per generation, fact.
 * changes in dna are heritable, fact.
 * some changes are beneficial, fact.
 * enough changes and you get a new species, fact.


 * the older the rocks the simpler the organisms found in them become, fact. That's a fact? Really? It sure sounds like a law. It certainly purports to have predictive power, namely by stating that if you found some even older rocks tomorrow, the organisms would be simpler. So it's certainly a different kind of fact that "John went to the store this morning" which is simply an observation. SixPurpleFish (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to brush up on what scientific laws and scientific facts are. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why when it comes to concepts like fact and theory, we need to be current with philosophes of science, who are trained to use words precisely. To answer an objection above, no I do not think this is an article on philosophy. It is an article on evolution as theory and as fact.  NPOV demands we include all relevant significant views from notable sources.  We have to include the views of biologists, who are experts on evolution.  We have to include the views of philosophers of science, who are experts on scientific theories and facts.  If you think otherwise, you are just ignorant as to what philosophers are experts on. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Source of ambiguity
It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion on theory/fact (in the previous section, and perhaps this one as well) may be a misunderstanding of what the article is all about. The only reason this article exists is because of the efforts of creationists to find any method to confuse issues surrounding evolution. One technique involves switching between disputing the facts and the theories of evolution. The first sentence of the article has seven references. Reading them shows that reliable sources have written in exactly the terms addressed by the article. The Gould article is a good first choice.
 * The recent edit which changed "disputing the validity of evolution" to "disputing the validity of the theory of evolution" has missed the point. Creationists want to deny the fact and the theory (see above Gould article), and they want to take any minor disagreement about a particular theory as an attack on the fact, and any questioning of a particular fact is taken as evidence against the theory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the misunderstanding, if you say creationists are conflating fact and theory? That's exactly the ambiguity I pointed out. Whether creationists don't understand the difference, or willfully ignore it, is kinda beside the point. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Is there something in the article that should be improved? What? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a sentence in the article that "mislocates the ambiguity"? Yes, the second sentence of the article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the explanation given above has not changed your mind from your initial comment, and you don't want to discuss the replies. In that case, all I can do is to refer you to the seven references. Read the first few paragraphs of the Gould article and then say in what way the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is disagreeing with the sources, or suggest some alternative wording. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the Gould article. But I'm beginning to suspect this is more of a terminological dispute than a substantive one. (And therefore, not really an interesting dispute). Creationists, according to the wiki article, conflate "Theory of Evolution" and "Fact of Evolution"; the article says this plays on an ambiguity in the term "evolution", I think the ambiguity is in the term "theory". But I'm not convinced this changes any of what follows in the article. Hairhorn (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article i on the ambiguity in the word "evolution." Discussion of an ambiguity in the word "theory" belongs in a different articl. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point, that this article - or at least the second sentence - gets it wrong. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you miss everyone else'spoint - this article is about one particular misunderstanding. You keep bringing up a different misunderstanding.  Look, the ketchup article links to "tomato" and to "vinegar."  Are you going to go to the article on "tomato" and insist that ketchup has vinegar in it?  Yeah, that is correct, but what does it have to do with the article on ketchup?  This article is on evolution as (1) theory and (2) fact.  Its purpose is to explain what this means.  You want to argue some other point, fine, but it is not here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not quite it, but the point's been beaten to death already. You yourself point out that there are ambiguities both with "evolution" and "theory" below. Hairhorn (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems: creationists do not understand what scientists mean by "theory," and they do not understant that while scientists talk of the theory about evolution, scientists also consider evolution itself to be a fact. This is an imposrtant distinction in science, between a model of some part of the world, and the observational consequences of propositions derived from that model that can be checked through experiment or observation in nature. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments.***
 * The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over

OBLIGATION: List at least one example- with references- please. Implicit- you must define "changes". Currently ambiguous - population changes or changes to individuals that constitute the former. The former connotes but does not denote genetic drift or change since it could be merely variations in distributions of a specific variation within a species and not a change in the species itself. The latter generally would be a better example of actual evolution, assuming that the individual organism were truly a representative of the species as a whole changing and not merely a malformed/damanged individual. (Beware the passive voice verb with no subject. 'mistakes were made' etc 'are known to have occurred' :) )Thank you.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.145.194 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The evolution page is what you are looking for I believe, it has examples of speciation on it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Hairhorn to the extent that I think historically people have got into a muddle by using all or any of the three words imprecisely. The opening paragraph seems to be trying to paint a picture in which "evolution is fact" applies to a simple uncontroversial definition of evolution on which everyone can agree, while "evolution is a theory" is reserved for a more complex definition involving mechanisms and things that cannot be directly observed.

I do not doubt that is a possible answer to the conundrum but misleadingly it is not the whole story. In support of this explanation we are told "the fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time". And it is hard to disagree that these changes do occur. So the implication is that those dumb creationists who have been denying evolution is fact have been using the wrong definition of evolution all along.

I'm afraid this explanation simply will not do. "Evolution is a fact" really does mean something more profound than a few observations of changing characteristics in a lab. The creationists get it which is why they are angry. So do Dawkins and Futuyma who later in the article say respectively "evolution is a fact" implies 'we are cousins of bacteria' and that 'organisms have descended from a common ancestor'. Of course 'evolution is fact' at least sometimes means something profound and worth attacking from a creationist point of view. Maybe the author of the opening paragraph did not 'get it'? — Axel147 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Controvercy
I really do not think the article should state strongly wheather or not it is fact or theory due to ongoing controvecy and religions. Parker1297 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you didn't read the article. If had done so, you might have learned (from the multitudinous reliable sources cited) the reasons the scientifically literate consider evolution in both senses. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, Wikipedia reflected the consensus of the experts, not the consensus of everyone with an opinion and a keyboard. The relevant experts, in this case biologists, consider evolution to be a fact. That fact is itself best modelled by what we call the theory of evolution or sometimes just "evolution". Hence the room for confusion addressed herein. The article is spot-on as regards the expert consensus. The "controversy" to which you allude would be of no relevance even if the creationists were counted amongst the number of experts (which would be nonsense anyway). A dissenting group of less than 0.1% of relevant experts does not make an ongoing controversy. Anyway, as Scientizzle suggests, read the article. DoktorDec (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The biologist are the majority and the majority is not always right. I can see your an atheist and you hold much faith in evolution, but on Wikipedia we try to share an even view. So it wouldn't be disastrous to add a 'criticism' section. Whether you think it is ridiculous or not.--209.80.246.13 (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE. Neutrality means giving more weight to the majority opinion of scholars and experts. Gabbe (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Text
I have removed false information; the term fact used to describe a hypothesis that is supported by lots of evidence, the main article says NOTHING about this. A fact is something that is VERIFIABLE. If you can't verify it, it is NOT a fact. Shicoco (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "supported by lots of evidence" means verifiable. Replaced. Vsmith (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Shicoco, please don't remove information that complies with WP:V and replace it with information that does not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact section doesn't seem to be parallel with the its main article
Please check the fact section of this article, it says a fact is something that has a lot of evidence for support. However, the main article for a scientific fact seems to conflict with this; see the comparison with gravity. Shicoco (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the RfC isn't going to get this page to ignore the universal and unquestioned scientific communities support of evolution. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stay on topic Raeky, and try to quit harassing me. I don't mind support for evolution. I have found a legitimate error and wish to have opinions. I don't want to go to a creationist article and see it say "Creationism is basically a fact because it's backed by the bible and billions of people worldwide." Shicoco (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But not by any verifiable facts or evidence, thats why it's supernatural. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on the contradiction anyone? Does anyone think it's a serious contradiction, a small one, an ignorable one? Shicoco (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be prudent for you to spend some time reading the talk page archives and past discussions here about this, that probably should of been done BEFORE you created a RfC. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And please don't turn this into an evolution vs. creation ordeal. It's not about that. I'm concerned about errors and non encyclopedia quality. Your opinions please. Shicoco (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article states, "Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence." I tend to see usage in the first sense much more than usage in the second, but the second is sourced, so somebody uses it that way. So I would say that the question to answer in this RfC is of the significance of its usage in that form. Awickert (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a thought about the usage of fact in the second sense, it is certainly common to view as "fact" basic physical laws, which are technically theories, such as gravitation, relativity, and electromagnetism. Awickert (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it doesn't match the "main" article. Inasmuch as scientific fact is a redirect, perhaps we should change it from to ? That should solve the problem raised by the RFC, right? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't bother me that articles as such may not always be consistent, this being Wikipedia and all. When they are inconsistent I can imagien any number of ways of proceeding.  As to the case at hand, I actually think that here is a stronger argument that most facts fall into the second category, by which I mean repeatedly confirmed hypothesis.  Example: I see an extraordinarily lovely looking person and say so to my friend who replies what are you blind?  what an ugly dog.  I also try to toss a crumpled up peice of paper from my seat to the garbage pail ten feet across the room and I fail.  These experiences might make me cast doubt on all of my perceptions.  Then I step outside and I say "That's some blue sky" and the person next to me says "Yes, that is some blue sky!"  You could say I am hypothesizing that the person next to me will confirm my perception.  Which he did.  Wheh!  Now, this may seem mundane to you, or trivial, but I think when we are talking at a two year old child who has to (1) sort out words (2) sort out other people and (3) sort out the world as he or she experiences it, it is no mundane at all.  And I think little children have such experiences over and over and over.  Despite what might be called their natural proclivities, they learn to feel shame if caught naked, they might come to develop a revulsion at the thought of eating live bugs no matter what the protein count, it really is quite extraordinary.  Now you can say I am lumping together two different kinds of hypotheses: "When I let go of this ball, it will fall" and "When I say that the refrigerator is big, mom will smile and agree with me" but I think the child is making these hypotheses all the time and ends up developing a pretty stable view of the world that is the outcome of  BOTH kinds of hypotheses (thus, a child in Greece born in a certain century may think that all things are made of four elements, a child born in Greece at another time will believe there are over a hundred elements.)  I am sure anyone out there can argue with me about inappropriate examples.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is that I bet that with a little thought, any o you can come up with appropriate examples.  Here is my main point: that it is a fact that a certain hormone has a certain chemical composition and molecular structure can move very discernably if quickly from being an unknown to a hypothesis to a fact illustrates the same process that occurs almost instantaneously for children between the ages of 2 and three for all sorts of things everyone except two-year olds cannot imagine being contentious, and is the same process that occurs for some people at a very slow rate that lasts their entire adult life.  This is why I think most facts were once the subject of hypotheses (albeit, not in laboratories) and even those "facts" that the article defines as "data" were once, perhaps a long time ago, actually hypothetical too. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, theoretically all facts are hypothetical. — Axel147 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was involved in a similar discussion here some time ago where I made similar comments. Thumping the table and shouting fact fact fact simply undermines the credibility of evolution or any other theory.  Evolution is a very well established and very well verified theory, just like Newton's laws or Maxwell's equations are in physics.  These theories can never be proved just verified and supported by the experimental evidence.  Like other theories, evolution itself evolves as we find out more about it.  Although the word 'fact' is often used informally in science in has no place in serious discussions about subjects like evolution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think most scientists would say that facts do exist in science and sociologists and philosophers of science would say that it has a clear and practical meaning: a hypothesis (or hypothesized thing) that has withstood so many attempts to falisfy it, or that has expressed itself so many times, that it is no longer controvesial. No long controversial = no one finds it a productive use of time to try to falsify it any more + taking it for granted actually opens up new productive lines of research ... which means that no one thinks of it as hypothetical any more.  That scientists use the word fact is not trivial; it significes something important, even if it is not what most people who do not understand science think. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is "Thumping the table and shouting fact fact fact" are they ? The article simply cites reliable sources that describe it as a fact. We can assume they are being serious. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to me to be pretty well the whole point of the article. To say that evolution is a fact.  I agree that the word fact is used informally to mean,  'a hypothesis (or hypothesized thing) that has withstood so many attempts to falisfy it, ... that it is no longer controvesial' but there is no scientific definition of exactly when a theory becomes a fact.  In my opinion it is best not to use the term at all.  Why not stick to more scholarly terms like: not falsified, well established, verified, widely accepted etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But Evolution refers both to a theory and to facts. If it uses these terms somewhat differently than many people eliev, hefre' is the place for an explanation.  After all, the encycliodia is meant to educate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you define 'fact'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, that's a worthwhile question, but in the context of this article, the issue is not what any of us think "fact" means. Instead, it is verifiable (see article) that a bunch of people talk about "theory" and "fact" in the context of evolution. For many of them, "theory" means "speculation", and "fact" means "true". Reliable sources mentioned in the article patiently cover what these words mean to scientists. Johnuniq (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, why do you ask me what my definition of "fact" is when your initial comment in this section was in response to my explaiing my deinition of fact? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there are sources defining what the word 'fact' means to a scientist you will not find many scientists using it in that sense in academic works. I think the use of the word 'fact' is peculiar to scientists who are arguing with those who do not believe evolution. In my opinion the word is far less convincing than the more scholarly descriptions that it replaces, such as 'widely accepted' or 'well verified' as it can appear to be claiming a degree of certainty that no scientist should be claiming. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just do not agree. Scientists use "fact" all the time.  Scientists will say that it is a fact that the structure of DNA is a double-helix.  They will say that it is a fact that the pepotide TRHF(h) is the trigger for the release of thyrotropin.  They will say that it is a fact that falling objects in a vacuum accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.  They do not just use the word "fact" in debates with creationists.  And in all these cases by fact they mean, as you say, well-verified or widely accepted.  We just need to explain to readers that htis is why factmeans to scientists.  That is teaching them - what an encyclopedia is for. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can show me some academic sources where the word 'fact' is used in this way. Most sources are likely to say just, 'the pepotide TRHF(h) is the trigger for the release of thyrotropin' or 'falling objects in a vacuum accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second per second'.  The word 'fact' is seldom used in academic literature. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick pubmed search gives 131,861 articles where the word 'fact' is used in the abstracts. First few hits: "given the fact that their hosts can produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) as a mechanism of defense", "In fact, synthetic peptides can be specifically modified to mimic neo-antigens", "evidence to support the fact that low/negative expression of the basal-like markers is not the essence of the normal-like subtype" (I especially like "evidence to support the fact", in light of this little debate), "in fact, other components of translational machinery such as eIF2alpha, eIF3b, eIF4E, eEF2 and ribosomal P protein are enriched in areas surrounding ASFV factories". Granted, in the majority of hits the use of the word 'fact' is purely colloquial ("in fact", "despite the fact", etc), but I'd see nothing unusual in 'despite the fact that TRHF(h) triggers the release of'. --Cubbi (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] As you say most of the uses of 'fact' are in set piece phrases and in the examples given the word is never used in context of discussing confidence in a theory. In this context it is much more common to say for example, 'relativity is a well accepted and experimentally verified theory' rather than 'relativity is a fact'. Scientific evidence can never prove a theory, it can only disprove it. Use of the word fact can indicate to many that it is claimed that the theory is proven. Making this claim about a scientific theory is always an overstatement and therefore wrong. The word, in my opinion, therefore has no scientific currency in this context.

The reason that I am making this point is that, when arguing with crackpots, although you must state your case well you must not overstate it as that creates a (unjustified) weakness in your argument, which can be attacked fairly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree (although I would say that it is hypotheses that cannot be proven, not theories; theories are models that may or may not be useful but I think are beyond true/false. Now, our aticle says evolution is both a fact and a theory, and I think this is reasonable.  What is critical is that the word evolution is not refering to the same thing (lexically) when we call it a fact as when we call it a theory.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what the difference is. Could you explain please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Okay.  "Evolution" is a fact when it refers to claims like "It is a facxt that Rice and Salt were able to create a new species of fruit fly under experimental laboratory conditions; it is a fact tha tthe hawthorn fly is diverging to two new species, observable right now in nature."  However, "Evolution is a theory when it refers to a bundle of propositions that include propositions that are independently testable (you can test them independent of the original case that led to the proposition), unified ( relatively small bundle of propositions is adequate to explain a wide range of phenomena) and fecund (it opens up new avenues for research); this is the case when we speak of the modern synthesis, or Darwins original set of propositions involving the rate at which an organism reproduces; the ability of a niche to support a given number of members of a species; the fact that there are variations among organisms of the same species; the fact that those members with traits best suited to their niche will life and those less suited will die .." and so on.  People use evolution to refer to both things, but each thing is diferent. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there are two different meanings to the word 'evolution' and that one refers to a theory (essentially Darwin's) and the other refers to the observation that species can change in some circumstances? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (slaps forehead in disbelief) That's what this entire article is about! You did read the article didn't you? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it purports to be but that makes it a non-article like, 'Light - a form of electromagnetic radiation and things that are not heavy'. Whilst saying that the word has two meanings it is concentrating on the commonality between those two meanings. So what is the purpose of the page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, the purpose of the article is to explain that the term evolution has 2 meanings, one being a theory and the other being a fact, which some people don't seem to understand. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So illuminate me. The first meaning is essentially Darwin's theory.  Another more general meaning is the changing of one thing into another as in 'the singer evolved into an actor'.  Is this the second meaning that the article refers to?  If not what is that meaning? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, stick to the examples I gave. The first two are of facts (predicted by Darwin's theory, and explaind y Darwin's theory).  The second is a theory (and I pretty much stuck to Darwin but the theory could just as well be the modern synthesis).  I will try to make it  little easier for you: two phrases: (1) the evolution of the fruit fly and (2) the theory of evolution.  In both phrases "evolution" is a noun, but in one case it refers to one thing, which happens to be a fact, and in the second case it refers to something else, which happens to be a theory. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?
This is a continuation of the discussion above. I am sure some of you must think that I am just being awkward but I am genuinely having difficulty in understanding the point of this article. I am not a biologist but physicist with an interest in evolution. I am not a creationist or other crackpot.

Clearly this article is not just about words - the fact that the word 'evolution' can be used with different meanings, that is to say, it is not an article about the English language.

I understand the idea of evolution as the name of a very well accepted, established, and verified theory of the way different species came to exist.

I also understand the popular use of the word to to mean slowly changed. But if we take the example given above of the hawthorn fly what do we take the word to mean there?

The hawthorn fly has been observed to be diverging into two different kinds. Using our current taxonomical terminology it is changing from one species to two species (as I understand the situation). So where does the word 'evolution' come into this? We could certainly use the word in its popular sense to mean 'changing', and say that the single species of hawthorn fly is evolving into two different species, just as we might informally say that a singer was evolving into an actor or that one band had evolved into two different bands. However I guess that this article is trying to say more than that.

We could also make the point that this observation is yet more evidence for the theory of evolution. That, I think, is also not the point being made in this article.

The article seems to be making a somewhat circular point, along these lines. We have a well established theory of evolution. We observe hawthorn flies to be changing from one species to two and we note that this is good support for our theory. We therefore make the natural assumption that what we are observing is the process of evolution as described by our theory, so we call it evolution. We now claim that, because we have now observed 'evolution' it is a 'fact'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what your remaining questions are, so I will try to answer what I think you might be asking. Above, you seem to be saying that the scientific meaning of evolution is a "theory of the way different species came to exist" and that use of the term evolution to mean "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" is just a popular usage of the word. This is not correct. They are both scientific terms. I took the second quoted definition of evolution from the first sentence of the main evolution article.


 * You also seem to question the purpose of this article and why it exists. The purpose of it is to explain the 2 different scientific uses of the term evolution. The reason this is necessary is because some people try to claim that species do not change over time and will often try to discredit the fact that species change over time by saying that "evolution is just a theory". But, the evolution they are trying to discredit is actually not a theory at all. It has been confirmed to occur through observation and experimentation, as all good science is. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could the article's objective be altered to making a distinction between "facts" that are observable and that indicate that genetic changes can and do occur, as separate from a theory of the mechanism behind the changes? As it stands, the article seems to be aimed at simply muddying up the water by making "fact" almost meaningless. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) well, I think that is Martin's point, that for scientists it is virtually meaningless. But going back to old-fashioned empiricism (observed versus not observed) is not going to help, that is stuff that philosophers rejected a long time ago.  To Rreadan007, no, I think Martin Hogbin is raising good-faith issues.  There is a circular relationship between fact and theory - i think any philosopher or sociologist of science would acknowledge that.  Martin's main concern is i think to communicate clearly how scientists use words like theory and fact (or do not use them) and he makes a valid point: it is easy to thump a steel desk and say "this is a fact' but ask some metalurgists to discuss laminated steel and what is a fact suddenly becomes very questionable.  I think there are three salient points here to respond to Martin (1) audience: the main audience for this article is people who have problems with the [Evolution]] article and many of them are creationists.  I agree this article can be better-written, but all articles are written for an audience.  Granted all Wikipedia articles should be written for a popular audience, but the typical reader of this article will be a creationist who communicates using words like fact and theory in certain ways and we need to use those words somehow to communicate back at him. (2) scope - this is not the general article on theory, and I think a lot of martin's points may better serve improvements to the article(s) on scientific theory. (3) sources.  Martin says his is the view of a physicist.  This is a view we should take seriously. But I ask martin to accept that there are other "scientists" - not physicists but philosophers and sociologists - who make "science" itself their object of study and their views are as important as physicists or even biologists.  in fact, i think it is a weakness of this article that it does not draw more on the most recent work by philosophers and sociologists of science, like Philip Kitcher and Bruno Latour, as well as life and physical scientists like Evelyn Fox keller and Richard lewontin (Triple Helix) who have written accessibly and with authority on these issues.  These three points may lead to an article that martin may still take issue with but it would be a better article and would address his questions in a more sophisticated way.


 * Now to answer Martin directly, you can imagine that the Evolution article gets a wider range of people on the talk page than the article on Optics or Gravity. To deal with the Evolution/Intelligent Design/Creationism morass, Wikipedia has several articles that yes must stand on their own but really are linked.  Someone will propose a lunatic edit to the Evolution article (weekly) and be directed to this or one of a few other articles to explain to them why they are wrong.  This all grew out of people who watch the Evolution article getting tired of getting sucked into the same long debates on the talk page of that article, and so they created other articles to direct readers to.  Creationists will regularly write on the talk page, "Evolution is just a theory" as if theory = religion so either evolution cannot be taught in schools or creationism must be taught in schools.  Stephen jay Gould - an eminent theorist of evolution - made a fact/theory distinction and this article grew out of his distinction, drawing on other sources.  Martin, this is the long and the short of it.  Now, it is my personal view that what the article is tying to say is that evolution meaning speciation is a fact in the common sense meaning of fact, and that evolution meaning a set of explanations for speciation is a theory.  Beyond this I think different editors have tried to draw on different sources to explainthe relationship between fact and theory in science.  August Compte, the founder of positivism and a pivotal figure in the history of science, explicitly stated that there is a dialectical relationship between fact and theory.  Many scientists do talk this way, and many more philosophers of science do talk this way.  Martin, please believe me that this is true.  This does not mean that this article in its current state does a good job of explaining any of this.  I wish someone getting  PhD in the sociology of science, and someone getting a PhD on the philosophy of science, could take over and coordinate a good article that covers these things, in relation to debates over evolution and in relation to debates over science in general.  Alas, Wikipedia seems to have no editors with graduate school training in these fields who know all the current debates and best sources.  All i know is from reading adjunct to my own specialty, and either the New York Review of Books, the NY Sunday Times book review, or the Times Literary Supplement.  So I know there is more, better stuff out there ... but i have not read it and do not have the time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your replies. I have made my point and will leave it at that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew how to translate your concerns intoa few straightforward improvements to the article. But my personal view is that this article has so many problems that it may be easier to go back to square one and start all over - or remove ALL material on "fact and theory" in science in general and limit this in scope drastically. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

changes in populations of biological organisms over time
This phrase in the early introduction is hopelessly vague. It should be changed. As it stands, it could be taken to mean changes in numbers of individuals, redistribution of populations geographically, changes in health, attitude or diet. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the modified wording more clear? Shanata (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But this article is talking to people who are following creationism. It is not true that the only "fact" about evolution is that genetic changes occur, so some other wording would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins tackles this more expicitly in his new book
Should any of this from Dawkins new book be included:


 * ' Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.


 * Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.


 * Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.


 * Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.'  Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

— Axel147 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object. But I think one thing we can learn from the previous discussion is to put stuff like this in context.  Dawkins is on an anti-religion crusade.  Okay.  And he certainly is a significant source.  But if he were addressing a different audience I bet he'd use different language.  I thnk context is relevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dawkins sounds like he is soapboxing. It isn't going to be persuasive to use this approach. Hard argument, not rhetorical gesture is needed. Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is soapboxing, but I like this edited quote: The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 08:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dawkins explains the current scientific view clearly, rather better, in my opinion than the article does, that is not soapboxing. I understand Dawkins' frustration and why he writes the way that he does but I am still not sure that it is the best way to convince people here.  Perhaps we should start by asking who this article is aimed at.  There are some, for example committed creationists, who will not be convinced by anything.  Thumping the table and shouting fact! fact! fact! will have no effect whatsoever.  At the other extreme there are people, probably the majority, and including myself, who understand that although the descent of humans from ape-like creatures may be referred to as part of the 'theory' of evolution, this theory is as well established as many other things that are popularly referred to as 'facts'.


 * So who are the people in the middle? That is the question.  Once we have decided this we may be better able to decide how to explain the current scientific understanding of the subject to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth emphasizing Dawkins   'some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts'  . From where I'm coming from this is saying a theory can in some cases also be a fact. In other words agreeing with Dawkins here seems incompatible the opening sentence which reads 'the statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" .... arises because evolution is used in two ways'. Anyone else think this? — Axel147 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Evolution is not ambiguous
(related to Axel147's statement of 1:32 11 Sept) Not ambiguous, but rather involved in two areas, both of which are immediately discussed (so it is unnecessary to say so, as it is immediately shown to be so), in the fourth and fifth sentences (The "fact of evolution"...The "theory of evolution"...). Therefore, the second and third sentences ("This statement arises"..."In short, the word is ambiguous") in the lede are unnecessary. Read it through, before and after, and see what you think. I have WP:BOLDed them out, and I think the article gets straight to the point that way. I am not really happy with the entire ambiguous what-do-they-mean 'hook' of the first sentence in any case, but if we are going to go that way, we should not take detours, IMO. Anarchangel (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good decision to remove 'ambiguous' I think. That is a good start at least. I mean even though you could argue evolution has multiple meanings saying it is ambiguous seems to imply science is wishy washy and imprecise which it is not. So I think it is better removed. — Axel147 (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Evolution compared with gravity" OR?
I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone here, since I think this article is quite important. However, if I can ask one question -- why isn't the section on "Evolution compared with gravity" original research? I've seen such collections of claims, comparisons, etc. claimed as "original research" and deleted on other pages. Per Wikipedia OR:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

While the idea that evolution and gravity have some things in common is cited in the one reference provided for the "Evolution compared with gravity" section, none of the detailed comparison here is included. In fact, the word "gravity" isn't even used in the cited source. Moreover, "gravitation" is only used twice, and certainly not with any of the detail provided in this section. Thus, there is no evidence here that "a reliable source has published the same argument"; it has merely stated a brief claim related to the one in the article with none of the details provided here.

In an article that is otherwise rather well-sourced, this section (while interesting and certainly correct) strikes me as a rather novel contribution, at least based on the one extant source cited. If other sources could be given for such a comparison, it might be better.

However, even so, this comparison strikes me as somewhat unencyclopedic. It's a collection of facts about gravity and evolution that are interesting, but it's not directly on topic. It's sort of a case study that compares the topic of the article to another topic, which is an unusual thing for an encyclopedia to do. Unless, of course, there are a bunch of sources (not just one or two) that use this SPECIFIC comparison for addressing the topic of the article. If so, those should be cited.

Again, I agree with most things in the article. I'm just trying to help clarify what it's doing. The next step would be to address a topic that has been discussed a few times before on the talk pages, namely that the epistemological position about the status of "fact" and "theory" in science is rather vague and naive in this article, and it certainly doesn't take into account serious discussions about such things that have happened in philosophy of science in the past 50 years. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

tha majority is always right. Whether you think it is wrong or not.--209.80.246.13 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an oddly blatant argumentum ad populum. I also fail to see its relevance. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)