# Fact in Evolutionism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991 "2000-10-30T22:54:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/1 "2000-10-30T22:54:22Z")
I have had two professors, one for Natural Science and one for Anthropology use the same argument to answer a question. The question was, “Is Evolutionism a fact?” There response was this. “There is fact in Evolutionism.” They then seem to imply that this means that it is indeed a fact. I’m wondering what people think about this argument. I emphasize, I want to know what you think about this argument, not about whether evolutionism is true or not. My opinion is this(since you asked). 🙂 Correct my interpretation of their logic if I’m wrong. They seem to be saying this. All Facts are true(this I agree with). Anything that has facts in it is true(I’m not so sure 'bout that…). Evolution has facts in it. Evolution is true. That seems way off to me. How 'bout you? ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/2 "2000-10-30T23:34:11Z")
How about “Evolution is as close to a fact as science is can admit?” * * * Yer pal, [Satan](http://www.members.tripod.com/jmspoofe/sdmb/satan.jpg) \*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Six months, three weeks, 21 hours, 39 minutes and 33 seconds. 8196 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,024.51. Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 11 hours, 0 minutes. **THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN! 1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000 26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time! And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!**\* ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/3 "2000-10-30T23:36:39Z")
Science does not deal in “truth.” Science deals in fact. Is evolution factual? Yes. Is it true? Irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/4 "2000-10-30T23:43:18Z")
Anything that has facts in it is true? No. That is like saying, any puzzle that has pieces in it is put together correctly. The facts may be completely misinterpreted just as a puzzle could be put together in not quite the correct manner. Theories aren’t facts. I accept evolution as the truth, and I think you’d have to be fairly dim not to with the preponderance of evidence being on the side of this theory, but I could still be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/5 "2000-10-30T23:49:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mahaloth \* > \*\* > All Facts are true(this I agree with). > > Anything that has facts in it is true(I’m not so sure 'bout that…). > > Evolution has facts in it. > > Evolution is true. > > That seems way off to me. How 'bout you? \*\* Fallacy. My favorite fantasy novel states that wood will burn (fact). Therefore, my favorite fantasy novel has facts in it. My favorite fantasy novel is true. Dragons, Gods, wizards, etc. all exist. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/6 "2000-10-30T23:51:25Z")
evolution = change It is a fact (verifiable evidence) that changes occur in species. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how the evolution of life on Earth occurs/occurred. An “explanation” is not a “fact”, but it can be based on facts. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2000, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/7 "2000-10-30T23:57:19Z")
I think what your professors were trying to do was be diplomatic about saying that, while evolution is well-supported by evidence, evolution is not certain (just as no scientific theory is ever certain). It’s often said that evolution is a fact, but that’s hyperbole indicating that, generally and for the moment, it’s so well supported by scientifically valid evidence that questioning the general premise isn’t very useful. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/8 "2000-10-31T00:09:37Z")
Voilá: The talk.origins archive article, [Evolution is a Fact and a Theory](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/9 "2000-10-31T00:13:32Z")
Hmmm…first off, what is Evolution"ism"? Evolution, in the sense of “species changing into other species over time” is a fact. We haven’t directly observed this process taking place in the same way you can watch something happening in a test tube, but this is true of lots and lots of facts in science. If you want to get all philosophical about it, you could question the fact of evolution, but if you’re sufficiently solipsistic, you can question just about any fact; evolution is about as well established as facts get in science. There are also theories of evolution; i.e., systematic models which seek to explain how evolution takes place. Theories of evolution have included Lamarckianism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) and Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin’s theory is still the core of modern evolutionary theory (the “neo-Darwinian synthesis”), and one of the cornerstones of biology, although with considerable elaborations and modifications. Scientific theories aren’t just wild-ass guesses, of course, and while the “neo-Darwinian synthesis” might be modified in the future, it’s unlikely it will ever be completely discarded. For some basic information, you could check out [the Britannica article on evolution](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,108619+1,00.html), which includes [this quote](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,108619+6+106075,00.html): > [@](#): > > The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution; that is, that organisms are related by common descent; (2) evolutionary history–the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and (3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs. > > The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty. Darwin gathered much evidence in its support, but the evidence has accumulated continuously ever since, derived from all biological disciplines. The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established with the kind of certainty attributable to such scientific concepts as the roundness of the Earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a “fact”; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/10 "2000-10-31T00:21:16Z")
Ism? I don’t know. I’m not Creationist, but I figure if we’re going to call theirs’ Creationism, we should then call it Evolutionism. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/11 "2000-10-31T01:01:28Z")
Nah, that’s a false equivalency. Theirs _is_ an “ism”, evolutionary theory isn’t; it’s just science. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/12 "2000-10-31T01:21:07Z")
MEBuckner wrote: > [@](#): > > Evolution, in the sense of “species changing into other species over time” is a fact. We haven’t directly observed this process taking place in the same way you can watch something happening in a test tube, Oh yes we have! [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/13 "2000-10-31T02:11:35Z")
I stand corrected. (Well, okay, I sit corrected, actually.) ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/14 "2000-10-31T08:48:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*I stand corrected. (Well, okay, I sit corrected, actually.) \*\* As long as you’re corrected, you can assume any position you want. 😃 Chalk up one more bit of ignorance fought!! ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/15 "2000-10-31T11:45:20Z")
There’s been some interesting results in speciation recently that haven’t made it to the talk.origins archive. [Fishy clue to evolution](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_979000/979950.stm) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/16 "2000-10-31T12:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mahaloth \* > \*\*Ism? I don’t know. I’m not Creationist, but I figure if we’re going to call theirs’ Creationism, we should then call it Evolutionism. \*\* As MEB pointed out, that’s a false equivalent but one might contrast creationism with rationalism. ---
**Author:** ![Mauve\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@Mauve\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mauve_Dog)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-in-evolutionism/38991/17 "2000-10-31T19:28:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mahaloth \* > **All Facts are true(this I agree with).** Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Facts are based upon our perceptions and perceptions can change. Facts are merely our current interpretations of reality. \*\* > [@](#): > > Anything that has facts in it is true(I’m not so sure 'bout that…).\*\* The Bible has facts in it. Is the Bible, taken in its entirety, ‘true’? That depends upon who you ask, so I’d say that the quoted statement is at best dubious. \*\* > [@](#): > > Evolution has facts in it.\*\* I would agree with this. \*\* > [@](#): > > Evolution is true.\*\* Which, of course, does not follow, strictly speaking, from the above. I think a better argument would go like this: Q: Is evolution a fact? A: If we define evolution as Darwin did to mean ‘descent with modification,’ then it would fit the definition of ‘fact,’ in that we do perceive this to occur; however, ‘truth’ is to be found within philosophy, not science. We cannot ascertain the ‘truth’ of evolution any more than we can ascertain the ‘truth’ of the existence, or even the lack thereof, of God.