Evolution is only a Theory

Originally Posted by rayback

Evolution is only a Theory.

It is not a FACT.

That means there is disunity over the idea.

How do you define the terms 'theory' and 'fact?'
I cannot help but suspect that you are not defining the terms in the way that they are used in discussing evolution...

rayback, you're correct in that evolution is indeed a theory. but this is the kind of argument that fundamentally religious types have used to undermine evolution. over and over again. so here goes again...!

what they choose to ignore and disregard is that the theory of evolution by natural selection has decades worth of facts to support what it's putting forth. as with anything, innovations in science usually begins with an idea or theory, and then research, experimentation, observation, etc. is used to gather enough data to support that theory.

Darwin and his contemporaries could only support the theory of evolution by observation in nature, plant cultivation and animal breeding. but since then, as science and technology has progressed over the past century, mountains of evidence to support the theory of evolution has been published in various field of science: biology, ecology, geology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. etc.

The study of evolution has also expanded to encompass these many fields and disciplines. Naturally, scientists will have different ideas and disagreements regarding the intricate details of evolution, but overall, any scientist worth his or her salt all believe that the basic principles presented by the theory of evolution are unified.

for you to dismiss evolution in such a way shows that you do not have a very good understanding of what you're talking about.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

A theory in everyday terms is different from a theory in scientific terms. What you're debating is like saying there, they're, and their must all mean the exact same thing because of how they sound the same.

Did you mean this?

Evolution is only a theory.

It is not a law.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is 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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

It is not a scientific law, never was, never will be:

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

The god-bot cry of "evolution is just a theory" is a sure sign of someone who is merely repeating a catch-phrase without any understanding of the scientific method.

Look, I will make it simple for you guys:

In schools and collages, they teach Evolution as a Theory.

The text books do not say Evolution DID happen, or that it is a FACT.

No. They teach it to students as a THEORY.

Why?

Because scientists are still digging. Search is not over.

And while the dig carries on, they cannot scientifically say that evolution has now been ESTABLISHED as a fact.

That is why there is division among scientists.

Most scientists believe in Evolution; but some scientists are still refuse to accept the claim that men are related to monkeys, or that humans emerged from apes.

They are divided over the hypothises.

I will make it simple for you, rayback.

Your conclusions are nothing new. You have echoed exactly the same thing that creationists and the religious right have been harping about ad nauseum. We've seen all your arguments before.

For example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

You saying that humans emerged from apes shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic concepts of evolution.

You are only emotionally arguing against the theory of evolution without providing any factual basis yourself. You seem to be arguing against evolution on an atheist forum because evolution seems to threaten your faith.

Again, you're not the first person on this forum to echo that evolution is only a theory, yada yada yada, on an atheist discussion forum no less. It is very tiring and redundant to keep arguing the same things over and over. It's even more tiring when we try to explain evolution to people like you and you keep repeating the same things without any facts to support your claim.

Why don't you try to learn a few basic things about evolution first before making an argument that is based on emotion rather than reason?