What is a Theory?

[Youtellme]

I wonder why no one objects to the theory of gravitation by jumping out of the highest floor of their building. It's only just a theory, right?

:clap

 

[Rational_Mind]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs.

Gravitation is a fact. The gravitational theory explains this phenomena.

Relativity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains it.

Scientific theories are explanations for observable and testable phenomena.

There are hundreds of scientific theories including germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, quantum field theory. theory of thermodynamics, theory of plate tectonics, Newtonian theories of motion, theory of radioactivity, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, theory of convection and many more.

I wonder why no one objects to the theory of gravitation by jumping out of the highest floor of their building. It's only just a theory, right?

This is exactly how I understood it to be. I want anyone who disagrees to shed some light on this subject. I really don't like it when people say that evolution is just a theory (some religious scholars) in a fashion to completely deny facts that evolution happened. Now as to how it happen can be disputed. Similarly many theories get reworked to better explain the fact. But say it is just a theory does not mean that what we observe never happened. Maybe our explanation still needs work.

I am not sure if I am right as I have not thoroughly seen different opinions on this. This is the conclusion I have drawn from my education.

 

[gnostic]

It really depends on what context that you would use "theory". But since this is science vs religion forums, then you would be required to use the most appropriate definition of theory that relate to science. HENCE, Scientific Theory.

Theory is science is the best (possible) explanation to describe whatever phenomena you are studying or researching. The scientific theory is a hypothesis that have been thoroughly verified and tested.

Hypothesis should be distinguished from theory, because hypothesis has not been verified (yet). It is often the hypothesis that get debunked or refuted, if it failed to meet the requirements of the scientific method.

People, particularly creationists confused theory with hypothesis.

Theory explained facts.

A good brief and clear description on (scientific) theory can be found in Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#cite_note-2

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

This is exactly how I understood it to be. I want anyone who disagrees to shed some light on this subject. I really don't like it when people say that evolution is just a theory (some religious scholars) in a fashion to completely deny facts that evolution happened. Now as to how it happen can be disputed. Similarly many theories get reworked to better explain the fact. But say it is just a theory does not mean that what we observe never happened. Maybe our explanation still needs work.

I am not sure if I am right as I have not thoroughly seen different opinions on this. This is the conclusion I have drawn from my education.

You have drawn the correct conclusion. :yes:

 

[idav]

I have heard many religious people say that Evolution is just a theory, implying it is not a confirmed fact, in much the same way as when someone says 'Yes, in theory you could do that.' etc.

However, my understanding is that when something in the scientific field is called a Theory, it is a fact. (I actually think people confuse 'Theory' with 'Hypotheses'.)

Now, is my understanding correct? Is a Theory truly a fact? Or is a theory only a fact until someone disproves it?

I'm thinking for example of the theory of special relativity. Some of you may have heard of this story. BBC News - Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

Of course it was then followed by this story. BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrino result queried

So, potentially, a established theory was overshadowed by doubt for a while.

Now, my point is, is a theory, be it, the theory of special relativity, the theory of evolution or any other theory, truly infallible and set in stone, not subject to change?

When I say that "in theory this or that will work" it means that it will factually work if we don't run into any exceptions that I didn't think of. In theory means it is factual in most scenarios most anyone can think of. A lot of times "in theory" is based mathematical figures that haven't been verified by actual experience but usually math is very accurate at prediction if it was done correctly.

 

[rusra02]

A fact is something that exists beyond reasonable question or doubt. Example: The earth revolves around the sun.
The theory of evolution does not meet this criteria. Scientists do not agree on any one unified theory of evolution, and some scientists reject the evolution entirely. It is not an established fact, however much ToE apologists claim that it is.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nice one. Perhaps they should change the term to 'Established Fact' or something to say confusion!

The confusion is an issue with education, not science terminology.

 

[Father Heathen]

A fact is something that exists beyond reasonable question or doubt. Example: The earth revolves around the sun.
The theory of evolution does not meet this criteria. Scientists do not agree on any one unified theory of evolution, and some scientists reject the evolution entirely. It is not an established fact, however much ToE apologists claim that it is.

If you're not going to read the thread then you have no business posting in it.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

A fact is something that exists beyond reasonable question or doubt. Example: The earth revolves around the sun.
The theory of evolution does not meet this criteria. Scientists do not agree on any one unified theory of evolution, and some scientists reject the evolution entirely. It is not an established fact, however much ToE apologists claim that it is.

Please do not bring scientists down to the level of apologists. Facts need no apology.

Evolution has been an established fact for a long time now. You obviously have no clue what a scientific theory means.

A cursory google search will reveal this on wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]

The theory of evolution has met this criteria. It is able to explain and predict the phenomena of evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Please do not bring scientists down to the level of apologists. Facts need no apology.

Evolution has been an established fact for a long time now. You obviously have no clue what a scientific theory means.

A cursory google search will reveal this on wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]

The theory of evolution has met this criteria. It is able to explain and predict the phenomena of evolution.

Michael Denton spoke of this mantra repeated by evolutionists that "evolution is a fact" with these words: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense." The facts support an intelligent Creator, not the gradual change from one species to another.
No reasonable person would deny the earth revolves around the Sun. Millions of reasonable persons, including scientists, do not believe in evolution, because they have examined the evidence for themselves.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Michael Denton spoke of this mantra repeated by evolutionists that "evolution is a fact" with these words: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense." The facts support an intelligent Creator, not the gradual change from one species to another.
No reasonable person would deny the earth revolves around the Sun. Millions of reasonable persons, including scientists, do not believe in evolution, because they have examined the evidence for themselves.

Oh, Michael Denton said it? Then of course it must be true! So silly of me!

 

[gnostic]

Michael Denton spoke of this mantra repeated by evolutionists that "evolution is a fact" with these words: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense." The facts support an intelligent Creator, not the gradual change from one species to another.
No reasonable person would deny the earth revolves around the Sun. Millions of reasonable persons, including scientists, do not believe in evolution, because they have examined the evidence for themselves.

Excuse me, but none of Denton's assumptions and conclusion in any of his book were ever tested. Biologists from both sides (biologists and microbiologists), have all disagreed with his assumptions, which were largely erroneous.

And secondly, none of his assumptions indicated Intelligent creator, like a god, and he actually believe that the Biblical creationism is for ignorant Christians and the notion of literal interpretation of the Genesis to be plain stupid. He rejected Christian creationism and he rejected the Biblical god.

And yet the only people who agreed with his book(s), were his former colleagues back at the Discovery Institute (group of people that have little to no background in science), an institute that he has distance himself from.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A cursory google search will reveal this on wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]

Well it's a bit more complex. The following comes from Zammito's book A Nice Derangement of Epistemes (University of Chicago Press, 2004) which looks at the history of scientific thought (or the philosophy of science) since Popper, beginning with Quine and covering the major players (Kuhn, Lakotas, Putnam, Pickering, etc.). "I will operate with the presumption that "theory" in current parlance embraces three distinct but not always distinguished domains: methodology, epistemology, and rhetorical reflexivity. By methodology I mean what relates to the concrete production of accounts-how and what one can write. By epistemology I mean what relates to the validity of the claims of an account. The epistemological borders on the one side the ontological and on the other the methodological. The rhetorically reflexive, finally, has to do with the inextricably rhetorical and linguistic form of all argument; it is a form of hypertrophy of epistemology in a shifted key or a "jumped frame." To "jump frame" is to take as one's topic one's target's resource." p.2

 

[rusra02]

Excuse me, but none of Denton's assumptions and conclusion in any of his book were ever tested. Biologists from both sides (biologists and microbiologists), have all disagreed with his assumptions, which were largely erroneous.

And secondly, none of his assumptions indicated Intelligent creator, like a god, and he actually believe that the Biblical creationism is for ignorant Christians and the notion of literal interpretation of the Genesis to be plain stupid. He rejected Christian creationism and he rejected the Biblical god.

And yet the only people who agreed with his book(s), were his former colleagues back at the Discovery Institute (group of people that have little to no background in science), an institute that he has distance himself from.

It is not surprising that evolutionists would disagree with someone who does not support their theory. His assumptions about the Bible are irrelevant to the point he makes that dogmatic statements that 'evolution is a fact' are 'nonsense'.

Anyone who dares question the ToE is haughtily dismissed by the ToE propagandists.
Michael Denton's book is not the issue. The point is his exposing of the Pharisaic mental bullying done by ToE adherents. The party line goes like this: "All competent scientists believe evolution. Only the ignorant, stupid, or crazy people don't. You don't want to be ignorant, stupid, or crazy, do you?" Thus the masses are intimidated into the evolutionist camp from childhood on, learning and knowing little or nothing about the massive weaknesses and speculations that dog this theory.

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

....learning and knowing little or nothing about the massive weaknesses and speculations that dog this theory.

Which are?

 

[rusra02]

Which are?

• No explanation of how life began (Since evolutionists have no answer, they conveniently dismiss this question as not part of the ToE. But, of course, central to understanding life is to know how it started.)
• No adequate explanation for the complexity of living things
• The fossil record does not support the ToE
• Mutations and natural selection cannot explain the variety of living things
• Macro-evolution cannot be verified by experiment or direct observation

This is a partial list.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And the list is all essentially lies

 

[gnostic]

• no explanation of how life began (since evolutionists have no answer, they conveniently dismiss this question as not part of the toe. But, of course, central to understanding life is to know how it started.)

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN???!!! :banghead3

Evolution has to do with how life adapt to new or changing environment. Evolution has to do with life that already existed.

It has to do with species and subspecies, with genetics and breeding, with ancestors and descendants. How different subspecies may have common ancestors.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Darwin never wrote about how life began. He was only interested in why species change.

Are you always so willfully stubborn and deliberately ignorant that you tends to ignore the scope (limits) of the study of evolution? :banghead3

You're so (frustratingly and) fricking @#$@#$#@#! *beep* *Beep* *BEEP* :foot:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

• No explanation of how life began (Since evolutionists have no answer, they conveniently dismiss this question as not part of the ToE. But, of course, central to understanding life is to know how it started.)

• 
  
  Take an example: Evolution of a boy into a man. Where in this sentence do you find the need to explain how the boy came into existence? Evolution deals with how life evolved, not how it began. I find extremely surprising and frustrating that you cannot understand or are not willing to understand this simple difference.
  

  [*]No adequate explanation for the complexity of living things
  [*]The fossil record does not support the ToE
  [*]Mutations and natural selection cannot explain the variety of living things

  Why not? Please present your sources or an explanation. Anybody can make assertions. You have to prove your assertions.
  

  [*]Macro-evolution cannot be verified by experiment or direct observation
  This is a partial list.

  So you do agree that micro-evolution is observable?
  BTW there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Most scientists agree that evolution is a series of gradual changes. You may call them micro-evolution if you want, but the cumulative effect of micro-evolution is macro-evolution. And this whole process is called evolution. I suggest you read a basic science book on evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN???!!! :banghead3

Evolution has to do with how life adapt to new or changing environment. Evolution has to do with life that already existed.

If we can't say where electrons came from, then Ohm's Law is false.