Theory, Fact, Law, and Evolution

[Skwim]

I don't know how many times I've read that biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption. Something lacking the strength of fact. Sometimes this is done out of genuine ignorance, but just as often it appears to be done to demean evolution, and no doubt is sometimes a consequence of both.

In order to set these people straight as well as any here who might tend to buy into this misconception, I've looked around the internet for remarks that speak to the issue. Here are some of my finds.

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence.
source


"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."
Source:Wikipedia


In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
source
​

As an added note I'm throwing in this choice definition of "fact" by Stephen Jay Gould.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

​

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, . . . a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Some think that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon in the natural world that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects.
source

​

Evolution then stands as a fact, and no less a fact than gravity. Where theory comes into play is in explaining how it works. As for the laws of evolution, here is one example.

"In crosses between species, the genetic cause of the preferential sterility/inviability of the heterogametic sex resides on the sex chromosomes."
source
​

Of course it's my hope this thread will make a difference in how people regard evolution, but considering the less than honest approach some creationists take toward evolution it's not a great hope. I am a realist after all.

.​

​

 

[sun rise]

I hope your post does some good. With some I've given up the precise meanings to hopefully make a point but I'd rather not.

 

[corynski]

Evolution also applies to other phenomena, such as language. Over time, languages evolve into similar but different languages, until they become completely different, or as with english, it can evolve from 'old' english such as occurred in the middle ages all the way up to today's current modern english. And I think religions evolve also, such as catholicism evolving into protestantism and then further into splinter groups such as baptist and methodist, all the way down to small local churches. And another example could be the evolution of the 'god' concept over time, such as from early Judaism where God says it's OK to kill people praying to the moon, and on to the more recent gentle God of Christianity. This all seems logical as evolution simply means change over time.

 

[Valjean]

No need to scour the web for examples of this red herring, just look through the RF archives. This comes up almost every time we have a creationist or ID thread, and no matter how many times the issue is clarified it never seems to sink in.

 

[jhwatts]

I think the problem resides in defining what parts of the theory of evolution has been solidified by repeatable experimental data and/or measured results by rigid laboratory experimentation.

the definition of scientific theory

Certain aspects of the theory of evolution cannot be denied, however many components (certain parts of it) that have been proposed cannot be verified by repeatable experimental data and must remain simply a unproven component of the theory of evolution.

the definition of evolution

Its these components that allow the possibility of theory to be wrong in part . The parts that cannot be verified are either incorrect assumptions and invalidated what is proposed by the theory to some degree, cannot be verified by our technological ability, or are unverifiable due to them being hypothesized to occur over such an extended period of time.

 

[Skwim]

No need to scour the web for examples of this red herring, just look through the RF archives. This comes up almost every time we have a creationist or ID thread, and no matter how many times the issue is clarified it never seems to sink in.

I truly believe many creationists get a kick out of purposely misrepresenting it.

.

 

[gnostic]

No need to scour the web for examples of this red herring, just look through the RF archives. This comes up almost every time we have a creationist or ID thread, and no matter how many times the issue is clarified it never seems to sink in.

Ignorance is bliss for some people.

 

[David T]

I don't know how many times I've read that biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption. Something lacking the strength of fact. Sometimes this is done out of genuine ignorance, but just as often it appears to be done to demean evolution, and no doubt is sometimes a consequence of both.

In order to set these people straight as well as any here who might tend to buy into this misconception, I've looked around the internet for remarks that speak to the issue. Here are some of my finds.

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence.
source


"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."
Source:Wikipedia


In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
source
​

As an added note I'm throwing in this choice definition of "fact" by Stephen Jay Gould.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

​

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, . . . a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Some think that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon in the natural world that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects.
source

​

Evolution then stands as a fact, and no less a fact than gravity. Where theory comes into play is in explaining how it works. As for the laws of evolution, here is one example.

"In crosses between species, the genetic cause of the preferential sterility/inviability of the heterogametic sex resides on the sex chromosomes."
source
​

Of course it's my hope this thread will make a difference in how people regard evolution, but considering the less than honest approach some creationists take toward evolution it's not a great hope. I am a realist after all.

.​

​

Evolution is self evident a dog is an evolutionist we don't need science for that at all. So yea creationists are completely nutty but what is going on! that is a much much much more difficult question.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution is self evident a dog is an evolutionist we don't need science for that at all. So yea creationists are completely nutty but what is going on! that is a much much much more difficult question.

What is going on? As I see it in a nutshell.

First of all, those in science don't give a rat's rump what the religious faithful think of their work or their conclusions, just as long it doesn't interfere with it, OR try to steer public school students away from it.

Secondly, some of the conclusions of science are regarded as a threat to the Christian religion; possibly convincing the faithful its dogma is in error. Therefore, creationists will sometimes try to demean evolution by calling it a theory, implying it is not a fact but only conjecture. Creationist are very afraid of the science supporting evolution, which is why one rarely finds them affirming the principles of creationism, but rather attacking evolution.

.

 

[David T]

What is going on? As I see it in a nutshell.

First of all, those in science don't give a rat's rump what the religious faithful think of their work or their conclusions, just as long it doesn't interfere with it, OR try to steer public school students away from it.

Secondly, some of the conclusions of science are regarded as a threat to the Christian religion; possibly convincing the faithful its dogma is in error. Therefore, creationists will sometimes try to demean evolution by calling it a theory, implying it is not a fact but only conjecture. Creationist are very afraid of the science supporting evolution, which is why one rarely finds them affirming the principles of creationism, but rather attacking evolution.

.

I don't know if you realize the Pope did undergrad work in chemistry.. So I suppose I could start complaining about perpetual motion machine theorists such as the singular universe expanding Contracting like a giant surf ball or the infinite me cosmos of the multiverse or string theory and say science is nutty garbage which all of that is. Not everyone is as nutty in religion as you love painting even religion knows this and internally argues about it constantly. And believe it or not most are not happy with science being threatened by some religious folks and children being taught creationism. So you create the strawman knock it down with zero imput as to what is going on. Even the church struggles with that question so if they struggle and you don't eve address it, what the hell it's just whining. Superficial is superficial no matter its clothing. So while you complain about the clothes and they complain about the clothes the lily neither toils nor spin's! Is that Christian? I see zero evidence that, that itself is Christian at all. Christianity does not own that, and Christians tend to not own up to that. So if you say yes that in and of itself is Christian you are as confused as they are. Go contemplate the lily get back In a couple of years to me. MUIR did and magic happened.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's worth pointing out that there are no biological laws because the data is too dynamic for description by a linear equation that will be consistent. But we do not hold, say, the laws of thermodynamics as more 'true' than 'macrobiotic life is composed of microbiotic cells' aka cell theory.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know if you realize the Pope did undergrad work in chemistry.

No I didn't, but

Not everyone is as nutty in religion as you love painting even religion knows this and internally argues about it constantly.

And I never said or implied everyone in religion is nutty, if that's what you're trying to say. But whatever . . . .

And believe it or not most are not happy with science being threatened by some religious folks and children being taught creationism.

Hmm. I don't think I'll believe it. However, what I do believe is that you love making up things and passing them off as fact.

source​

So you create the strawman knock it down with zero imput as to what is going on.

Well, I'm not about to go searching for all the times creationists have, in effect, said "biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption," but I do recognize your right to characterize them as my strawmen, silly as it is. My guess is that either you haven't read many creationist comments, or have simply chosen to ignore them.

Even the church struggles with that question so if they struggle and you don't eve address it, what the hell it's just whining.

Believe it or not, but what the church may struggle with is of no interest to me here. The fact remains, people do believe biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption. Don't want to believe it? Fine with me.

.

 

[David T]

No I didn't, but


And I never said or implied everyone in religion is nutty, if that's what you're trying to say. But whatever . . . .


Hmm. I don't think I'll believe it. However, what I do believe is that you love making up things and passing them off as fact.

source​

Well, I'm not about to go searching for all the times creationists have, in effect, said "biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption," but I do recognize your right to characterize them as my strawmen, silly as it is. My guess is that either you haven't read many creationist comments, or have simply chosen to ignore them.


Believe it or not, but what the church may struggle with is of no interest to me here. The fact remains, people do believe biological evolution is a theory. Implying, "just a theory," as in a good guess, hunch, or assumption. Don't want to believe it? Fine with me.

.

Well boy in the bubble keep slaying those dragons it gives you purpose. Ciao.