What makes Evolution a theory?

The Barbarian said:

It's essential to science. Otherwise you might as well accept YE creationism, flat Earth, and Big Foot.

Click to expand...

Hey, you leave Big Foot Alone - He exists - somewhere.

Hvizsgyak said:

In Punsutawney, Pennsylvania in the 1970s and early 1980s no such luck. I just asked my sister who is a science teacher there in Punxsutawney now and she said she'd have to look up the term. That means they don't use it that much either. So don't assume everybody has been taught that term.

Click to expand...

I looked up the state standards. Apparently common descent was removed from the standards, but after your time there. This is like removing Ohm's Law from electronics. Small wonder so many states in the US are so far behind the rest of the world in education.

Not true in every state, but it's deeply troubling in a world where science plays an ever greater role.

Hvizsgyak said:

Hey, you leave Big Foot Alone - He exists - somewhere.

Click to expand...

Of the three, his existence is the most credible.

Hvizsgyak said:

But sometimes they differ in their definition causing confusion amongst the general population. I'm not saying this is what happened to the word "theory". Science seems unanimous about its definition and the general population seem unanimous about its definition. But there are other areas where that isn't case. Views differ significantly in other topics - the age of the Earth, does black matter exist as abundant as some claim it does, out of Africa dates for Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapien, quantum entanglement.

Click to expand...

Yes, words often have different meanings in different contexts. Have you ever looked up the definition for the word "run'?

Hvizsgyak said:

I didn't do well when it came to the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws. In my eyes, it was nonsense. I only wanted to know about dinosaurs. I have a very selective learning mind. If it is boring, it goes in one ear and out the other. If it is something I'm interested in, I'm hyper focused but I only retain a small amount of info unless I dwell on it many many times. It's funny how I didn't want to learn about the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws when I was young. It's as if I knew then that that stuff was meaningless to prove points .

Click to expand...

I was the same way, but that's because I was raised in a very average, 1970's-80's, dysfunctional household and extended family. For me, science was reducible to looking at my favorite Dinosaur book, and watching Star Trek and Star Wars, a little Cosmos, and reading Marvel comic books out the wahzoo. (In other words, I was about as close to an empty vessel for real knowledge as one could get and still remain in the public school system ).

Later on, somehow with my engagement with the Christian Faith, science, history, psychology, a little math-----all the other academic things I generally abhorred as a small kid and teenager---- suddenly took on significance.

The Theory of Evolution? ... not afraid it and I don't worry about it.

The Barbarian said:

When I was in high school in the 60s, the basketball coach taught biology. And he knew the difference. This was in Iowa; I can't speak for places like Mississippi or Arkansas. But there really is no excuse not to know.


They did in my HS. And it wasn't a very good school district for Iowa.

Comes down to evidence. And every time we test it, it works.

Click to expand...

I'm still not convinced Mr Barbarian about the DNA. Science is basing their theory on DNA now by saying that some animals have the same sequence of DNA in their bodies as other animals. Science's conclusion, therefore, is the two animals must have a common ancestor. That being the case, isn't it possible that two different types of animals could have the exact same sequences of DNA in their genes and not have a common ancestor? I think it can be possible but really, I don't think there is anyway to truly prove either side of the DNA history.

Plus, I have heard that when they test the DNA sequences, scientists are only testing 2% of the entire DNA strand not the whole strand. So, it is possible to have the same sequences of DNA in two different creatures but they are not related.

Finally, I have one more video which has a good explanation against the theory of evolution.




I just think there are other decent theories that handle the origin and evolution of man. And I think by squashing these alternative theories isn't right when science's own theories aren't 100% proven. Something down the line could change everything.