• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is a Theory?

gnostic

The Lost One
9-10ths_Penguin said:
If we can't say where electrons came from, then Ohm's Law is false.

You would expect to learn and know where electrons come from when you study physics or electronics. It is part of the study. Also, learning about electrons is far easier than trying to learn about the 1st life. With a device, you can measure it, and you can calculate it, without needing to speak to Georg Ohm or even know about Ohm's background to learn about Ohm's Law.

But with evolution, you are not expected to know about the 1st life on earth. With evolution we only need to know why animals or plants or micro-organism changed or why others don't.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The confusion is an issue with education, not science terminology.
I would say the issue is with the philosophy of science. There isn't exactly an agreement on what things like theory, confirmation, etc., mean. The most common view seems to be more or less that science cannot prove anything, but can only disprove. I gave a more nuanced definition of theory earlier, but simplistically one might say it is a tested hypotheses the evidence for which has been accepted by some as convincing. And therein lies the problem. Some theories are very much debated. Others are about as close to "fact" as mainstream scientific philosophy allows. There is substantial evidence for the theory of embodied cognition. But there is significant disagreement as to whether or not the theory is accurate. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is more akin to the theory of gravity. To reject it is to reject the notion empirical evidence can result in any coherent explanation of anything, or more simply: all science is either useless or pretty close.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
But with evolution, you are not expected to know about the 1st life on earth. With evolution we only need to know why animals or plants or micro-organism changed or why others don't.
More specifically your referring to biological evolution. Everything evolves.
 
Top