Evolution by natural selection a mere theory?

[mcart909]

Says philosopher Peter Kreeft:

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory.

Is he correct?

 

[Mallon]

We know that natural selection is in operation today, and we know that it brings about new species. He's right in saying that we can only theorize as to its operation in the fossil record, but given that there's no reason to think otherwise, I would say that his argument is void. The onus is on him to demonstrate that natural selection wasn't in operation over prehistory.

 

[random_guy]

Says philosopher Peter Kreeft:



Is he correct?

No, I would say he's wrong on his terminology and definitions. Science doesn't deal with proofs. Proofs are for math and alcohol. Theories are about as good as you get in science. That's why we still have atomic theory, theory of gravity, and germ theory. To call it a "mere" theory shows lack of understand of the scientific process.

 

[Molal]

Says philosopher Peter Kreeft:



Is he correct?

I would say he is wrong in saying that there is no scientific proof of natural selection. Firstly, as another poster has mentioned, proof in science does not exist, secondly, there is a multitude of evidence to suggest that natural selection as one (there are others) mechanism for evolution does occur.

Also, it is worth noting what a theory in science means. I suggest performing a google search to discover it's true meaning.

The theory of evolution is one of the most evidenced theories that has ever existed.

 

[Vance]

A better way to look at it is "degree of certainty". Based on even the evidence already gathered on the subject (and more is coming in all the time), the degree of certainty that theory of evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of species over the billions of years is extremely high.

We must also remember that there are two different aspects here. First, we have the question of (and evidence for) whether current species derived from earlier species over these billions of years. Second, we have the question of whether the current theory of evolution is the best explanation for that development.

The degree of certainty for the first proposition is SO dramatically high, that it is often described as a "fact" of science, the same way it might be said that it is a "fact" that there are billions of galaxies or that there are neutrons in atoms (neither of which can be absolutely proven, if I recall).

The second proposition is a theory, but such a well-supported one that 99.85% of scientists believe it is the correct explanation. That makes up even most of the scientists who are also Christians. But even if this were NOT the correct explanation, we would simply be back to finding the correct explanation for proposition 1. For example, the Intelligent Design scientists, like Michael Behe, fully accept proposition 1, they just dispute that proposition 2 is the correct explanation for proposition 1.