Theories, facts, laws

Ken Kinman kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat Jul 28 17:14:03 CDT 2001

     I agree with you that it a question of semantics whether the word
evolution is applied to pre-origin chemical processes, since even if we
could observe how it happened, it is another one of those fuzzy continuities
that just can't be pinned down exactly.  So I wouldn't worry about that too
     However, I'm not sure it such a good idea to state that evolution is a
fact.  A good sophist can too easily take such a statement and turn it into
a narrow semantic debate, and then all your other points can get lost in the
     I think it might be a little better to say something to the effect that
the Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Gravity, is overwhelmingly
factual, so much so that they are widely regarded as natural "Laws".
     ----Just a suggestion,
               Good luck,  Ken
Richard Pyle wrote:
>I agree wholeheartedly!  I guess my question is: would the particular study
>of biology that addresses the question of original life origins, be
>within the scope of what we regard as "evolutionary biology".  In one
>it perhaps ought to be, because one could argue that the precursors to life
>underwent natural selection (of sorts) during the process that bridged
>non-life with life. On the other hand, this might just represent an issue
>semantics as to how one defines the meaning of the word "life" in biology.
>My personal feeling is that evolution, natural selection, and other
>associated *scientific* theories are all processes that *act* upon existing
>life; not generate life from non-life.
>Thanks for the feedback!
>Richard L. Pyle
>Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
>1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
>Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
>email: deepreef at
>"The views expressed are the author's, and not necessarily those of Bishop

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list