Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution is as real as gravity?


From Wim Hordijk at the Evolution Institute:

Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as “just a theory” in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation. What Darwin did for biology is on par with what Newton did for physics — and mathematics plays an important role in both theories. More.

How come no physicist ever said, gravity is as real as evolution?

Note: The ‘Evolution Institute’ sounds like a dodgy outfit, “Applying evolutionary science to pressing social issues.” How’d that work in the mid-twentieth century?

See also: What the fossils told us in their own words

J-Mac @10: Yes, we could have an interesting discussion about exactly what gravity is and how it is caused. When an apple falls from the tree, is it being accelerated by the "force" of gravity or is it being accelerated by the . . . what? . . . the "influence", the "effect"? . . . of the curvature of spacetime? Despite whatever important nuances Einsteinian theory brings to the table, gravity is still considered a fundamental force in nature. And it is a force (or influence, or effect, or result, or whatever we want to call it), that can be identified, predicted and calculated with great precision. Evolution has nothing like that. Not even in the ballpark. Thus, the right answer to the absurd evolutionist talking point that evolution is just as well-confirmed as gravity is not to say, "Yes, but there are some nuances of gravity we don't understand yet!" The evolutionist would definitely take you up on that and would love evolution to be seen as equal to gravity, despite any open nuances. Indeed, that is their whole point in bringing up this red herring in the first place. No. The proper response to the evolutionist is: "Nonsense. Evolution isn't even close to being as confirmed as gravity. Stop lying and misleading people." Eric Anderson
Axel, what an interesting writing style; disdainful, cavalier, and rather supercilious. To which as an atheist/materialist, I must ask the obvious question; 'Upon what is this hauty attitude based?' The writings of Dembski? Outside this soundbubble, unheard of. The writngs of Wells? "Icons of Evoltion I, II, III"? The airy way you dismiss evolutionary biology is fascinating, and can be quite adequitly explained by 'behavioural evolution'. Gaining kudos from the pack enables survival, and support from the group, thus allowing successful group relations to develop, ensuring your off spring greater chance for advancement, and the safe passing on of your genetic material. rvb8
Vanity prompts me to apologise : I thought I had emended 'caste of mind' to 'cast of mind', though seemingly not. Axel
I suppose most of you being of a decidedly-scientific caste of mind, (properly so-called !), that you have developed a sort of carapace to protect you from being endlessly amused by the extremely fanciful and far-fetched excogitations of your atheist confreres on these kinds of forums. I can seldom read these articles and comments, in which you expose the folly of their ideas in a purely functional, banal and routine kind of way, without my being forced to laugh out loud, often at each of a series of asinine conjectures of theirs as you recount them. Perhaps, a 'neuro something or other, (rude or lewd)' could claim to have identified the psychological disorder whereby I would find it LITERALLY impossible to refrain from sniggering, if not laughing out loud, even while reading, as a lay-reader from scripture, at passages indicating the very human foibles of the personae, the cast of real-life characters, within its covers. Added to this is your own often very dry humour, when you do take it upon yourselves to be satirical. Anyway, I congratulate you on your customary gravitas in the face of the atheist madness on the part of academically-educated men and women purporting to be scientists : a folly that I truly believe people will marvel at in the future. Axel
Eric, According to the general theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein Gravity is not as a force, but a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy. You are probably talking about Newtonian law... If Einstein's theory is considered, it could very well be wrong as time seems an illusion...notice that I don't necessarily question the attraction between physical objects...just general theory of relativity that describes gravity as a consequence of the warping of space time in the presence of mass... J-Mac
The reason no physicist ever says gravity is as real as evolution is simple. Mathmaticians, physicists, chemists, and the other uncontroversial sciences don't make claims as to human origins and development. The moment Darwin trespassed into the supposed sacred realm of theology and man's origins and development, the religious deemed his thinking fairgame. These scientists, by saying evolution in the science community at least, is as uncontroversial as gravity, are merely trying to explain to the public that science of evolution has the same evidential reliability as physics. rvb8
Denyse: Reminds me of all the TV adds for margarine when I was growing up: "It tastes like butter!" I started to wonder, why don't the dairy farmers ever show any adds for butter saying, "It tastes like margarine!"? Eric Anderson
Unfortunately, Wim Hordijk has no idea what he is talking about. The only way evolutionists get away with comparing evolution to gravity is by deceitful equivocation about what "evolution" means. I've personally seen gravity confirmed well over a million times today. Evolution? Not once. At least not any of the key claims. With gravity we know the type of force, the trajectory along which it is applied, the strength of the force, the units of measurement, and can calculate the force out to many decimal places. Evolution? No such luck. Eric Anderson
It's hard to challenge gravity... but let's try! "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy." What if time is an illusion as it seems to be? If one part of spacetime is an illusion, can the other be real? I mean there is space everywhere... But if gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime and at least time is an illusion, could gravity be real then? I mean... bodies are attracted toward other physical bodies...somehow... But how can we be sure that gravity is really real if 95% of spacetime is uncounted for? Well ...rather nobody knows what 95% of the universe is made of...dark energy ..dark matter... Now... how real evolution seems now? J-Mac
Evolution News picked up on this as well. johnnyb
EricMH: Without the theory of evolution, we never could have had uproars at school boards and famous court cases... Of course, we could still have the trilobites and the dinosaurs. If all we want to say is that some life forms have existed in the past but do not exist now, that is not only true but easily demonstrated. But evolution (Evolution) has always aimed at far more than mere history for which there is actual evidence. News
Furthermore, without the theory of gravity we could never have sent men to the moon. Now, fill in the blank: without the theory of evolution we could never have _______. EricMH
What is mathematical about evolution? What is an accepted mathematical model of evolution? Without that, how is it as valid as gravity, which does have a mathematical model? EricMH
>How come no physicist ever said, gravity is as real as evolution? That is a keeper quote! Thank you! EDTA

Leave a Reply