[Quotes] [Evolution, #1, #3, #4]
"Yet, clearly, evolution is not a "fact" in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. Without a time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved from reptiles....Nor can we prove that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth...." (Bowler P.J., "Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised Edition, 1989, p.357).
[top]"Yet what the genius of Darwin achieved, surely, was not to discover a host of new facts unknown to his predecessors that somehow added up to the further fact of evolution through natural selection; what he did was to see the facts in a new context-an imaginative context, the context of an idea, but an idea which seemed and seems to many modern minds peculiarly factual, an idea so convincing, so congenial, so satisfying that it feels like fact." (Grene M., "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.51).
[top]"The basic framework of the theory is that evolution is a two-stage phenomenon the production of variation and the sorting of the variants by natural selection. Yet agreement on this basic thesis does not mean that the work of the evolutionist is completed. The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case." (Mayr E., "Populations, Species and Evolution," [1963], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1974, reprint, p6).
[top]"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolutionary theory. There is no area in biology in which that theory does not serve as an ordering principle. Yet this very universality of application has created difficulties. Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to no two persons. The more different the backgrounds of two biologists, the more different their attempts at causal explanation." (Mayr E., "Populations, Species and Evolution," [1963], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1974, reprint, p1)
[top]"Evolution answers some questions but reveals many more questions. Some of these questions at this stage appear to be unanswerable in the light of present scientific knowledge. In common parlance: `The more you know, the more you know you don't know.'" (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy," Millennium Books: Sydney, Australia, 1990, p8)
[top]"When evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant? That now-living things have descended from ancestors, with modification, over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, in addition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still further, that the `first living thing' had as its ancestor a nonliving thing? Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate *some* sort of relationship and *some* sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL, 1994, p.65. Emphasis Bauer's).
[top]"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift-that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our continents-was every bit as good as it is today. .... In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away. ... The old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not `speak for themselves', they are read in the light of theory." (Gould S.J., "The Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.161)
[top]"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on observations, not theories. Theories, it is said, are useful in suggesting new ideas and new lines of investigation for the experimenter; but "hard facts" are the only proper ground for conclusion. I have never come across anyone who carries this profession into practice--certainly not the hard-headed experimentalist, who is the more swayed by his theories because he is less accustomed to scrutinise them. Observation is not sufficient. We do not believe our eyes unless we are first convinced that what they appear to tell us is credible. It is better to admit frankly that theory has, and is entitled to have, an important share in determining belief." (Eddington, Sir Arthur [late Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University]., "The Expanding Universe," Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1940, p.25)
[top]"It was a parable for students of scientific objectivity. Wherever the chart disagreed with his observations he rejected the observation and followed the chart. Because of what his mind thought it knew, it had built up a static filter, an immune system, that was shutting out all information that did not fit. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. If this were just an individual phenomenon it would not be so serious. But it is a huge cultural phenomenon too and it is very serious. We build up whole cultural intellectual patterns based on past 'facts' which are extremely selective. When a new fact comes in that does not fit the pattern we don't throw out the pattern. We throw out the fact. A contradictory fact has to keep hammering and hammering and hammering, sometimes for centuries, before maybe one or two people will see it. And then these one or two have to start hammering on others for a long time before they see it too." (Pirsig, Robert M. [American philosopher and writer], "Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals," Bantam: London, 1991, pp.343-344. Emphasis in original.)
[top]"The solution to Cordelia's dilemma-the promotion of her nothing to a meaningful something-requires the more extensive revision of conceptual overhaul. Cordelia's dilemma cannot be resolved from within, for the existing theory has defined her action as a denial or non-phenomenon. A different theory must be imported from another context to change conceptual categories and make her response meaningful. In this sense, Cordelia's dilemma best illustrates the dynamic interaction of theory and fact in science. Correction of error cannot always arise from new discovery within an accepted conceptual system. Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all." (Gould S.J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," in "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," [1995], Crown: New York NY, 1997, reprint, p.127)
[top]"So, the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory. It follows that the documentation of evolution does not depend on Darwinian theory or any other theory. Darwinian theory is just one of several biological mechanisms proposed to explain the evolution we observe to have happened." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289).
[top]"Well, Mr. Kristol, evolution (as theory) is indeed `a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses," and I and my colleagues teach it as such.'" (Gould S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, p.65).
[top]"The code of conduct that the naturalist wishing to understand the problem of evolution must adopt is to adhere to facts and sweep away all a priori ideas and dogmas. Facts must come first and theories must follow. The only verdict that matters is the one pronounced by the court as proved facts. Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories." (Grasse, Pierre-P. [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p8).
[top]"To say that there is a complete consensus among scientists that evolution has occurred does not mean there is complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms, or ways, in which evolution has occurred. Far from it. While evolution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject of debate. This is the fascination of science. To put it another way, there is no dispute about the fact that evolution has occurred but there is dispute among scientists about how it has occurred." (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy," Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in original.)
[top]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its
contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the
Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 23 November, 1999. Updated: 1 July, 2003.