Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution ... Or unkind dismissal?

[psyah]

Re: Apologetic Islamic take on Evolution … Or unkind dismissal?

@MirwaisHotak

This is interesting and I’d like to add my own two cents but I’m not sure if it is valid.

Your creating two definitions when in reality only one should exist.

A fact in science to put it simply is an observation that is taken to be true. Facts in themselves do not necessarily describe explanations (this is important). Again, facts are simply observations that are made that are taken to be true. The element of truth is also important.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation towards observed facts, and when generally accepted to be true becomes a theory. And hypotheses generally begin to be described by facts as a more correct understanding of explanations is obtained.

The muddling of language becomes apparent when you consider that as a hypothesis moves towards a theory, it can be taken as factual in a sense because it is considered a true observation.

I think the problem is fact and theory (and observation but that is another topic) are somewhat inseparable from one another. I think the word that they should have used is a scientific theory is factual, that it is based in fact and therefore share an element of truth. The question then arises if something is factual is it a fact? I think the answer to this question is yes.

According to scientists, the theory of evolution (natural selection amongst others I guess) is a fact because it is a true observation, it is something that actually occurs.

Peace MirwaisHotak

I am not creating these definitions … I have interpreted the paragraph that was posted by yazdi …

Actually I didn’t have a problem with the term “fact” having two different definitions … what I have a problem with is how people feel they can interchange between those definitions at will.

The term “fact” is a linguistic term which has all its array of meanings.

According to me a “fact” is EITHER similiar and according to definition 1 - i.e. observable phenomenon ratified by multiple observations made by multiple people of sane mind and who are telling the truth (These types of facts are things or actions that actually EXIST)… OR … a “fact” is some ASSOCIATED INFORMATION about something that **exists, **only when that associated information has been proven or SHOWN to be associated to that entity.

In science a “theory” would be unproven associated information, thus talking about either the “nature” of something or explaining how something “happens” … when this information is proven to be correctly assigned to that entity then it is called a “law” …

Laws help us formulate predictable models to aid us in our scientific work.

One can argue that a “law” is a “fact” … I’m not bothered … BUT what really bothers me is a theory should be formulated around what is “known to exist - a fact as per definition 1” - in other words the evolution scientists are busy formulating a theory around an “action” that has not been shown to be a “fact” itself first … and then they sell the whole idea as a “fact” …

I can only entertain the idea of evolution theory - when I have seen the “act” of evolution to be true. Such scientists argue in support of evolution by merging these two definitions … they say evolution is an explanation … thus getting away from the requisite of observing the evolving act … they have lots of people who ratify the theory, all who do so without observing the “act”, they have tested parts of evolution - because it is a compound theory - which utilises other theories, but then makes intuitive leaps to conclude more than what can be tested … however when they argue for crossing off the “test” box … they do it using the tests performed on the sub-theories (which in fact are stand alone theories) … When they pull this all together - they conclude evolution is a “fact” - as per definition 2 … but Definition 2 requires all of this explanation to be done around something that EXISTS … i.e. An aspect of Definition 2 is subject to Definition 1 …