You are comparing things which are not analogous. Newton and Einstein talked about "Law of Gravitation" which has been proved mathmetically and also by scientific experiments.(you won't find a single scientist saying that law of gravitation is wrong)
While Gould corrected a big aspect of a theory(which is nothing but a strong Hypothesis.) Most scientists don't say that evolution is a fact, they just think that evolution is the most probable cause behind the formation of current life forms (Fact is something that has been proved to be 100% true, not 80-90%)
That's what the whole debate is about. Some people in the forum is trying to pass the "Theory of Evoution" as fact while it is merely a strong hypothesis which may or may not be true.
As long as the whole scientific world(100%) don't comes to a definite conclusion regarding it or find an absolute proof to it without any opposition, using this theory to disprove anything is not valid.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
nayeem, I am not done with the other scientists (Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and Vernon Kellog and T.H. Morgan).
But first, do you concede that:
Gould maintains evolution is a fact and that he attempted to correct the "theory" of evolution?
Let me give you an analogous situation. Newton knew that gravity follows certain rules. Einstein also knew that gravity follows certain rules. But while Newton's explanation of gravity was from a classical mechanics point of view, Einstein's explanation is significantly (almost drastically) different from Newton's. But either way, both maintain that gravity is a fact.
So do you have any contrary evidence that Gould does not hold evolution as fact?
|
Edited on, March 30, 2005, 7:19 AM GMT, by nayeem007.