Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science.
-----------
Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it.
Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a while before Newton. What he did do, however, was to publish the Principia Mathematica in 1687 that gives an in-depth explanation of gravity, including the famous inverse square law. In the book he theorised his three laws of motion, invented calculus and basically lay the whoole foundation for classical mechanics. This is what we remember him for, not for having named gravity.
-----------
Seth: Everyone 'believes' in gravity. And yet, we know virtually nothing about it
fact: Seth should read up on his physics, starting with Einstein.
-----------
seth: There are very few people doing serious gravity research
Fact: One of the major goals of modern physics is a theory of everything where the four natural forces (weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force and gravity) are combined into one. Gravity has always been the odd one out and hard to explain, thus spawning massive research into gravity. One of the reasone the LHC, the most expensive physical experiment to date, was conceived was to learn more about gravity. Oh, and there's this guy called Einstein that apparently did some work in this area too.
-----------
Seth: There are evolution skeptics who would prefer a different story, but no gravity skeptics, even though there's a lot less science there.
Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture, and gravity is no exception since it implies that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Seth doesn't seem to get this though, since the battle was lost by the church long ago. Take Gallileo who was on trial on the suspicion of heresy in 1633 because of his theories of gravity. If found guilty he would have paid with his life. The laws of gravity were much more opposed by the church than evolution is today.
Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture
Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and the details aren't especially important.
That is, are you marketing evolution? Even the smart lads believe in evolution because it's fashionable, like the iphone, and not because they followed through all the relevant citations. Rather, merely quoting the full title of "On the origin of species" is enough to put fair weather Darwinists in a tizzy--and the atheists are right in there with the Pope, depending on how you advertise the inquisition. It's a marketing problem and has a marketing solution.
1. There's a broad space between "because it's fashionable" and "because they followed through all the relevant citations". It seems to me that "the smart lads", if you mean anything sensible by that, occupy a point of that space that's somewhere near "because they looked to see what people who show genuine signs of expertise tend to think". Which, given that science is a field in which expertise is actually possible and somewhat assessable, seems to me quite different from "because it's fashionable".
2. The full title of the "Origin of Species"? What, you mean the fact that (gasp) it has the words "favoured races" in it? Well, I suppose that someone who doesn't have any clue what Darwin meant by that might be worried that it's talking about human "races", but ignorance and stupidity are always with us.
Agreed. Momentum might have been a better concept to use here than gravity: Use something that a lot of people already believe in than trying to change their belief completely.
In other words, push the ball that's already in motion than trying to stop it and move in the opposite direction.
I'm not a scientist, just have a casual interest in science and its history, so please allow for some inaccuracies and feel free to correct me.
It appears that gravity is somewhat different than the other forces in fundamental ways. The other three forces are adequately described using quantum mechanics - gravity not so. Gravity is explained using Einsteins general theory of relativity, and describes gravity as a curvature of the time-space continuum. Modern physics rests on two main pillars: quantum mechanics and relativity. Gravity is the only one of the fundamental forces explained by the relativity column, and so it is harder to incorporate into a unified theory encompassing all the forces.
Of course it doesn't help that quantum mechanics and relativity are by many thought to be incompatible theories: The first works well for sub-atom sizes and weights, the latter works well for planet sizes and weights. This is also one of the reasons black holes are so interesting - sub atom size and planet weight. Both quantum mechanics and relativity must be at work.
I might be going on a limb here but do we really need to have every single Seth Godin post on Hacker News? Every few days there's a new one that somehow reaches the top, doesn't offer much value and even has significant issues (like this one).. I didn't really think this comment through but I know I have become slightly annoyed with his posts flooding HN as of late.
His posts are, however, often insightful and usually feature a fresh observation.
While these rarely give you step 1 - do this, step 2 - do that type advice, enough insights, when compiled together, can help you come up with ideas and inspire insights of your own.
It always irks me a bit when science is pushed out of its comfort zone to make some non-scientific point. Subtlety is lost, misconception introduced. And language like "just a theory" suggests that scientific theory is much less rigorous than it actually is.
Exactly. A theory has been vetted by both experimentalists and theorists multiple times until they are all so convinced a hypothesis works that it moves into theory land. In the vernacular, a theory is just an idea, which isn't the way its used in science.
Seth's analogies of gravity and evolution may not be accurate, but his point stands that the theory of gravity is less controversial than the theory of evolution. Its also interesting how he illustrates the power of a story as a marketing device. It is one of the many factors in the the success of evolution vs. gravity.
He goes a step further and provides insights into the kinds of stories that sell (or dont) - long stories and stories that go against the conventional wisdom are harder to communicate.
Obviously, if you have a super-spectacular product like google search or iphone (add in your fav product), you dont need to tell a silly story. But for most folks who are in the business of creating/delivering mundane products/services or who dont have a huge marketing budget, its nice to gain an advantage. I think this is one of the reasons for the success of the Balsalmiq guy - he has a nice product but his story of a totally transparent one-person ISV going it alone is really compelling.
Sometimes you have to go against the grain though. After all, evolution is true, and marketing it as 'this is a great way to supplement your creationism' (which Darwin actually did) may not exactly go over well or be the most honest approach.
We don't know evolution is true. The most you can say is that evolution is the best explanation we have for the data collected so far.
There have been pretty major revisions to the evolution since Darwin's time, and I think it still needs a lot of work to explain some of its fuzzier points ('chemical evolution', cambrian explosion, etc). It's entirely possible that a new explanation (i.e., not evolution) could better explain those and other data points.
It could be similar to how newtonian mechanics works 99% of the time, but couldn't explain the orbit of mercury. We needed relativity (which arguably disproved gravity) to explain the handful of non-conforming data points.
I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intelligent humans.
Honestly, I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I can't believe people accept Evolution as if it's some inherent and proven physical law as gravity. On the macro-evolutionary level, there's so much bullshitting/extrapolation going on (especially in the arena of speciation) that there's so many questions and holes left unanswered.
Despite the fact that we only ever observe variation within a given type, we're supposed to have faith in the scientists that (given enough time) we'll get whole new kingdoms of life. As far as I'm concerned, those experiments prove one thing: variation exists within a given type. Period.
So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures, even above the single-celled level.
The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years).
I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.
Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions:
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160
So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation.
Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other.
So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro).
So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it:
Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others.
Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate."
Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge.
And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to ignore, which is why nearly all anti-evolutionists never address that evidence head on, instead attacking "macro-evolution" or older arguments like gap-arguments.
Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can you see the picture on the box. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? Physics has core theories that are not entire validated or not understood, and yet you have no problem using a computer that works using principles said principles.
Simply put, you're applying inconsistent criterion to these to preserve a non-scientific ideology. You don't have a problem interacting with gravity, electricity, or nutrition (a far less understood science). But the fundamental unifying theory of biology? Well that steps on your minority fundamentalist religious convictions! Time to draw a line in the sand.
And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process?
In any event, religious folks always try to mix mechanism with meaning. The mechanism is something we can quantify and describe. The meaning is something you are free to imagine in any way you want. Religion has always been first about meaning and only later goes into mechanism when it begins to amass secular power.
You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic boundaries enable it.
Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology?
I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining the observable to explaining the unobservable.
Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got an axe to grind.
I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable
Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable.
We have a mechanism that we know works on real, living creatures. We have evidence that such process has taken place all over the earth on a large scale. What we don't have is the exact process happening under glass so that all you can do is avert your gaze.
And even if we had that the ID/biblical literalist movement would just move the goalposts again. They always do.
(2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together.
No different from physics. We have no unified theory, and many observations remain unexplained.
The Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not something observable and inherent to the universe like gravity, electricity, or the effects of good nutrition.
All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Science is not about proving absolute truth, it's about removing bias from observation and building models to fit those observations.
Your metric of belief is strongly biased here, and only in the case of biology. From what you've said, it's because your religious beliefs. You're free to hold them, but I'm also free to point out that the scientific consensus is that your religious fundamentalism is completely unsupportable when it comes to how current species came into existence.
Sorry, but it's false. And I'm not afraid to say that, and a growing number of people are standing up to the religious status-quo that has gradually been holding America back from scientific progress.
Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures.
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."
All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models.
Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation.
Read this carefully: ----
Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."
"Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!"
Why isn't it good enough here?
Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct.
There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science.
The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?).
It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all.
So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over.
When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist...
Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind.
And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible.
Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.
We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth?
1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist.
2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown.
There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.
Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer?
Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.
If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there?
Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like.
This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.
The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.
Neither can God.
I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent.
You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart).
This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind.
This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression.
If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics).
P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.
The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.
Neither can God.
Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed).
As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.
But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.
I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces.
History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys.
And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other.
You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to.
As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.
No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view.
But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith
Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining.
You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.
-- History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct.
History is also full of even more examples of models that have turned out to be incorrect. Historical examples of validity have no bearing on the independent validity of Macro-Evolution. And you're trying to lecture me on basic logic and rationality?
-- You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.
Right, and you do the exact same thing when you take evidence that indicates complex functioning systems have a designer and simply throw it out the window in favor of your own model. This argument goes nowhere on both sides.
-- You will move the goalpost
No, I won't move the goalpost, because the goalpost is clearly defined as the empirical observability of Macro-Evolution, in the same way that heliocentricity was proven by its empirical observability. There is nothing farther you can go than empirically observing a fully new type of life come from one another. Again, stop trying to extrapolate your historical experiences with others into an independent case. I will be firmly convinced once I see a creature (a fish?) evolve into a cat or some other creature.
-- You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion.
Tell me then, how do you bridge the gap of believing that something exists when in fact it cannot be empirically observed? However you may label it, the belief in anything that cannot be empirically observed is never fully grounded in rationality, but an intuitive feeling that it is the truth.
And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process?
I personally don't wish to add any power to the whole ID "debate". But the point you raise is one that I have often thought about myself. It's only that certain groups need to hold to the bible as the "inerrant word of God" (the earth is ~5000 years old, dinosaurs did not exist and obviously fossils were planted by God to test our faith, Adam was created first and then Eve from his rib bone etc.) that makes them fail to realise exactly this: Evolution could fit into their world view (slightly adjusted) as the mechanism put in place by their "intelligent designer".
What you have to understand is that ID isn't really what most of the vigorous ID proponents are really arguing for. What they're really arguing for is a literal interpretation of the english transliteration of the Bible, including a <10k yr old earth, genetic stasis, and biblical creation.
That's why it's not enough to get the "whys" for an unverifiable non-scientific explanation like ID. The "Whats" are also equally important to these people. Evolution cannot be accepted because Evolution requires time on a scale that rejects a biblically literal timescale.
Indeed, I think everyone knows what ID is really about by now.
The time scale issue is one that I have sometimes thought of in the same context though. To a person who does not see how any version of the Bible could be the inerrant word of God, it seems eminently possible that the units of time that have been translated as years could well actually be units of time that are much longer than years.
But as we both say, this would of course mean that one would have to be open to the possibility that a text originally based on oral history, which has been translated into and out of who knows how many languages, subject to all manner of surreptitious political motivations in the process, over the course of thousands of years, may be subject to some inaccuracies.
Most people I've met that accept evolution (well, the ones that accept evolution and also think about what they accept) accept it as requiring less bullshitting than other proposals and are also willing to reject it if something better comes along. I haven't met any reasoned person in a while that accepts evolution and isn't okay with the fact that it might not be right or at least finished yet.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. e.g. General relativity has a lot of mathematics backing it up.
Law: a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. e.g F = ma. We don't know why it's true, it just is some sort of an axiom.
I think Seth Godin got it right. Some of the comments here also prove how much Newton is a brand around which a perfect marketing campaign has been formed. I wrote a post about this:
Seth Godin implies that Newton became famous because of something that amounts to a cheap marketing trick, instead of just being a genius who revolutionized math and physics.
I say if you want to find something cheap in what Newton has done, the only thing you can do is look at what modesty made him say about himself:'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants'.
So now if you vote my post down, I'll know it's not a misunderstanding.
-----------
Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it.
Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a while before Newton. What he did do, however, was to publish the Principia Mathematica in 1687 that gives an in-depth explanation of gravity, including the famous inverse square law. In the book he theorised his three laws of motion, invented calculus and basically lay the whoole foundation for classical mechanics. This is what we remember him for, not for having named gravity.
-----------
Seth: Everyone 'believes' in gravity. And yet, we know virtually nothing about it
fact: Seth should read up on his physics, starting with Einstein.
-----------
seth: There are very few people doing serious gravity research
Fact: One of the major goals of modern physics is a theory of everything where the four natural forces (weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force and gravity) are combined into one. Gravity has always been the odd one out and hard to explain, thus spawning massive research into gravity. One of the reasone the LHC, the most expensive physical experiment to date, was conceived was to learn more about gravity. Oh, and there's this guy called Einstein that apparently did some work in this area too.
-----------
Seth: There are evolution skeptics who would prefer a different story, but no gravity skeptics, even though there's a lot less science there.
Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture, and gravity is no exception since it implies that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Seth doesn't seem to get this though, since the battle was lost by the church long ago. Take Gallileo who was on trial on the suspicion of heresy in 1633 because of his theories of gravity. If found guilty he would have paid with his life. The laws of gravity were much more opposed by the church than evolution is today.