Why 'just a theory'?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is the claim I see brought up a lot from people who do not accept evolution and Creationists (I am separating them because though there is an overlap there is a difference): that evolutionary theory is worthless or wrong or of less value because it is 'just a theory'?

So why is evolution considered 'just a theory' but other scientific theories are not called 'just theories'?

Something I've been curious on.

 

[Unqualified]

Because it cannot be tested or proved.

 

[BCP1928]

Because it cannot be tested or proved.

All theories can be tested, including the theory of evolution. No theory can be proved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because it cannot be tested or proved.

Except that in science, a theory refers to something that has repeatedly been tested. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on scientific theory explains it simply and clearly:
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Proof has nothing to do with it since proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

So why does evolution not pass muster for being a theory but the many other theories do? If you say evolution cannot be a scientific theory, then therefore the others must be suspect as theories too.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why is evolution considered 'just a theory' but other scientific theories are not called 'just theories'?

I'd say it's because evolution gets its claws deeper into the Bible than any other theory.

So we "fight back" by showing evolution for what it is: just a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

All theories can be tested, including the theory of evolution. No theory can be proved.

Theories are meant to be eventually pwned.

I believe science considers that a "strength."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'd say it's because evolution gets its claws deeper into the Bible than any other theory.

So we "fight back" by showing evolution for what it is: just a theory.

But you don't though. Just saying "It's just a theory!" does nothing.
And evolution really isn't the only scientific theory that goes against a literal reading of the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Theories are meant to be eventually pwned.

I believe science considers that a "strength."

Is it wrong to be shown that something was wrong and replaced with something better and more accurate?

 

[trophy33]

Is it wrong to be shown that something was wrong and replaced with something better and more accurate?

People who are unstable in their hearts (figuratively speaking) look for the stability in the things around them. And they feel unsafe if those are changing.

You are looking for some rational reasoning, but its more a psychological/emotional phenomena.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People who are unstable in their hearts (figuratively speaking) look for the stability in the things around them. And they feel unsafe if those are changing.

I've seen some that clearly show hints that, if they're wrong on one thing then they must be wrong on a host of other things too. Which I find sad really because being wrong on things is such a learning experience.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you don't though. Just saying "It's just a theory!" does nothing.

That's because it's watered down by the assumption that "everything is a theory."

Theory of evolution, of gravity, of relativity, atomic theory, etc and so on.

So when the Bible speaks a Truth, that Truth is weighed against prevailing theory and ... lo and behold ... found wanting.

And evolution really isn't the only scientific theory that goes against a literal reading of the Bible.

That is true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is the claim I see brought up a lot from people who do not accept evolution and Creationists (I am separating them because though there is an overlap there is a difference): that evolutionary theory is worthless or wrong or of less value because it is 'just a theory'?

So why is evolution considered 'just a theory' but other scientific theories are not called 'just theories'?

Something I've been curious on.

After years of these interactions it becomes clear that there are a number of causes for this error:

1. Bad teaching about "the scientific method" that places a sequence of scientific ideas as hypothesis becomes theory becomes law. This seems to have been removed from curricula and textbooks, but many of us haven't taken HS science in a very long time.

2. People confuse the colloquial, non-scientific use of "theory" as a sort of guessed explanation with the scientific usage.

3. At this point "just a theory" is a creationist meme used to denigrate evolution that circulates widely in certain circles. Most adults that are in churches that are or lean creationist have probably heard it in some context before.

4. Other than those long-ago HS science classes where they did hear of "Germ Theory" or the "Theory of Gravity", etc., most adults do not realize that other important scientific domains are also represented by "mere theories".

5. Some consider "Lying for Jesus" to be acceptable and propagate the "Just a theory" meme or even use it as an argument when the know the basic nature of the scientific use of the word.

For any individual, multiple causes from the above list. Those that become informed about the proper usage of the term and still persist (#5) should be met with disdain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's because it's watered down by the assumption that "everything is a theory."

Theory of evolution, of gravity, of relativity, atomic theory, etc and so on.

So when the Bible speaks a Truth, that Truth is weighed against prevailing theory and ... lo and behold ... found wanting.

But a scientific theory is an explanation of things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it wrong to be shown that something was wrong and replaced with something better and more accurate?

No.

But if it is science based, then it should be shown wrong first.

And if it can't be shown wrong because it isn't science based -- that is, a miracle -- then it should be notated as such.

Instead of notating it as such though, we Christians are given the third degree about it.

It's not our fault your science can't find anything that isn't science.

Yet we eventually end up getting ad hominemed to death about it.

So ... striking back with "it's just a theory" is, in my opinion, a viable comeback.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

But if it is science based, then it should be shown wrong first.

And if it can't be shown wrong because it isn't science based -- that is, a miracle -- then it should be notated as such.

Instead of notating it as such though, we Christians are given the third degree about it.

It's not our fault your science can't find anything that isn't science.

Yet we eventually end up getting ad hominemed to death about it.

So ... striking back with "it's just a theory" is, in my opinion, a viable comeback.

Your persecution complex is showing again.

 

[AV1611VET]

3. At this point "just a theory" is a creationist meme used to denigrate evolution that circulates widely in certain circles. Most adults that are in churches that are or lean creationist have probably heard it in some context before.

I look at it like "it's just a theory" is a comeback that science deserves.

Not as a means of denigration.

If, for example, I was told the Rapture cannot occur because it would violate gravity, then I would eventually -- (keyword: eventually) -- end up dismissing gravity as either "science can take a hike," or "gravity is just a theory."

It's a way of ending the conversation with a win-win solution.

Unfortunately though, it opens a door to getting ridiculed.

 

[trophy33]

If, for example, I was told the Rapture cannot occur because it would violate gravity, then I would eventually -- (keyword: eventually) -- end up dismissing gravity as either "science can take a hike," or "gravity is just a theory."

Such dismissing would be erroneous, though, because if any rapture happened (most Christians do not believe in any), it would be a supernatural/miraculous act, not a problem with science or gravity as such.

 

[AV1611VET]

But a scientific theory is an explanation of things.

Yes, indeed.

But there are some things that aren't explainable within scientific borders.

Like the parting of the Red Sea.

It's just so unscientific, it's ... it's ... well ... it must be a miracle.

But unfortunately, miracles are lumped in as "figments of the imagination" and left at that.

That's where the friction comes in between empiricists and miracle believers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your persecution complex is showing again.

Here we go.

I'm done here.

You guys work it out on your own then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I look at it like "it's just a theory" is a comeback that science deserves.

Not as a means of denigration.

If, for example, I was told the Rapture cannot occur because it would violate gravity, then I would eventually -- (keyword: eventually) -- end up dismissing gravity as either "science can take a hike," or "gravity is just a theory."

It's a way of ending the conversation with a win-win solution.

Unfortunately though, it opens a door to getting ridiculed.

Okay, now you see, if you had started a thread and gone into some length on it about the Rapture and ended up doing the whole 'gravity is just a theory' thing, I'd be okay with that because it's a negative point: if you're talking about the Bible or something miraculous in the Bible, then yes, any scientific would be pointless since by the fact of the miraculous nature, something being super-natural and thus unable to be explained naturally, you wouldn't be at fault.

But when it's the reverse, with people talking about science, in this case evolution, and your or others just jump in and go "It's just a theory", it's less a put down and more... trolling.