11-05-2004, 04:09 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 5,320
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Citizen
"Some Definitions
First we should clarify some terms, for no small part of the problem relates to what is meant by such words as "evolution," "theory" and "scientific." Both sides of the controversy often use different definitions so as to capture the semantic high ground. While this may be a valuable tactic in debate and public relations, it frequently means that understanding becomes the casualty rather than one's opponents.
We will here use theory as a generic term for a suggested explanation of observed phenomena. No attempt will be made to distinguish "theory" from such terms as "hypothesis" or "law," as was common a generation ago and as is still seen in some textbooks on science. Nor is "theory" to be understood as necessarily in contrast to "fact." A theory may be either factual or mistaken. We will assume that a theory is an attempt to describe reality rather than merely a technique for reproducing observations. (For instance, we will not call locating a star in the sky by earth-centered coordinates a theory, even though this system was developed when it was thought the earth stood still and the stars crossed the sky daily.) We are thus adopting a more-or-less realist approach to science when we seek to judge whether or not a theory is actually describing reality."
More here: http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/newman.htm
|
Thank you, Joe 
__________________
I still love everybody
|
|
|