Evolution "just a theory"?

[Vance]

I think this is a very useful quote to clear up this confusion about evolution being "just" a theory:


"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.


Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

 

[nyjbarnes]

Good post. I don't know that I agree with everything that you said there but overall I think it's a valuable post.

 

[StAnselm]

Yeah, I think sometimes people say "evolution's just a theory", without really knowing what they mean.

But Gould is way off beam when he says this:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts

Exactly. The facts involve the biological structure of animals, fossils, and so on. We have no data regarding (macro-) evolution: the best we can do is infer it from other data. Hence, the best we can say is that evolution is a theoretical framework that explains observed data.

Not that it explains it particularly well, IMHO. But the best that Gould can say is that he thinks evolution is a fact - hence, it is a theory.

 

[gluadys]

Yeah, I think sometimes people say "evolution's just a theory", without really knowing what they mean.

But Gould is way off beam when he says this:

Exactly. The facts involve the biological structure of animals, fossils, and so on. We have no data regarding (macro-) evolution: the best we can do is infer it from other data. Hence, the best we can say is that evolution is a theoretical framework that explains observed data.

Not that it explains it particularly well, IMHO. But the best that Gould can say is that he thinks evolution is a fact - hence, it is a theory.

Are you sure you are not basing this on a straw man definition of macro-evolution?

Speciation has been observed. It has even been produced experimentally. And as far as biologists are concerned, speciation IS macro-evolution. So it is a fact.

 

[StAnselm]

Are you sure you are not basing this on a straw man definition of macro-evolution?

You know, you may be right. Not being a biologist, I don't really know enough to back myself on this point...

 

[gluadys]

You know, you may be right. Not being a biologist, I don't really know enough to back myself on this point...

Wow! That is a very refreshing answer!

Love the Chesterton quote in your sig. Something we all need to ponder.

 

[Vance]

I agree, like a breath of fresh air!

 

[Codeman]

both creationism and evolution are theories- problem being neither can be proven or disproven, at least 100% in the eyes of all.

 

[Vance]

Yes, since theories are never proven, that would be true.

The difference is that, while theories can not be proven, they can be falsified, and the theories presented Creation Science have been falsfied.

The value of a theory, if it has not already been falsified (in which case it has no value) is the degree to which it accurately explains the evidence. The theory of evolution (as distinguished from the facts of evolution) has met every test that a theory can possibly be put to and has never been falsified. While many of the details are still being worked out, and some fought over vehemently, the basic concepts and the vast majority of the details have shown to be of such validity that even Creationists have had to (reluctantly) come to accept almost all the mechanics it posits.

Before you get too far along the "it's just a theory" line, I would urge you to read this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t847254

 

[xfwayne]

We need to make a distinction between the findings of science and the interpretation thereof. The findings are the evidence gathered. The interpretation is the theory one arrives at based on the evidence--which can be flawed, too.

 

[Vance]

True, and flawed theories are almost always falsified. Evolution has not been falsified in its 150 year history despite many, many attempts. This speaks volumes for how accurate it is likely to be.

 

[Micaiah]

How do define evolution? If you define evolution as the change we witness in shifting gene frequencies in animal populations, or any mutation that occurs, then presto, evolution is by your definition, more than just a theory. It is a scientific reality.

But that is not what you intend to mean by evolution. That is natural selection, or mutation. Evolution is the development of lifeforms from a soup of chemicals. That is a theory. No, that is a human philosophy, a religion, that many athiestic scientists believe in. It is their way of explaining how we came into existence without reference to God.

Hear what God says about such people in Romans chapter 1:

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

God won't accept the excuse that they believe 'science' contradicted the message of Creation and God's word. God says such prople are suppressing the truth. It is sad that the TE's have accepted the same deception promoted by athiests.

 

[gluadys]

both creationism and evolution are theories- problem being neither can be proven or disproven, at least 100% in the eyes of all.

Neither can be proven 100%. That is part of the nature of science, because we could only prove something 100% if we had examined all the evidence, and obviously we haven't.

Both can be disproven. If a theory makes a prediction (and all theories do) and it is shown that the prediction cannot be true, then the theory is disproven or falsified.

Creationism has been falsified.

Evolution, in spite of many attempts to do so, has not been falsified.

 

[gluadys]

We need to make a distinction between the findings of science and the interpretation thereof. The findings are the evidence gathered. The interpretation is the theory one arrives at based on the evidence--which can be flawed, too.

Yes, the interpretation can be flawed. But when many different scientists using different criteria of interpretation, and different methods of testing interpretations, consistently come to the same conclusions, there is less and less likelihood that the intepretation is wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

Evolution is a belief. Faith is required to accept that belief. It is a logical fallacy that the popularity of a belief is an indication of the validity of that belief. Christians of all people should recognise the flaw in that line of reasoning.

 

[gluadys]

How do define evolution? If you define evolution as the change we witness in shifting gene frequencies in animal populations, or any mutation that occurs, then presto, evolution is by your definition, more than just a theory. It is a scientific reality.

But that is not what you intend to mean by evolution.

You are mistaken. That is exactly what I intend to mean by evolution. Natural selection and mutation (and those are not synonyms btw) are the mechanisms of evolution and what they do is shift gene frequencies.

What you need to pay attention to is the result of shifting those gene frequencies. What happens to a species when gene frequencies are shifted?

What happens when a species separates into different habitats and in each section the gene frequencies are shifted independently of each other?

Think about that a bit and you may begin to understand evolution.

Evolution is the development of lifeforms from a soup of chemicals.

No, that is not evolution. That is abiogenesis.

That is a theory. No, that is a human philosophy, a religion, that many athiestic scientists believe in. It is their way of explaining how we came into existence without reference to God.

No, that is not evolution either. That is atheism.

Evolution is not atheism.

God won't accept the excuse that they believe 'science' contradicted the message of Creation and God's word.

But TEs don't make that excuse. We don't believe science contradicts the message of creation and God's Word. We only believe it contradicts one fallible human interpretation of the bible.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay. So my understanding of evolution is limited. How about you explain to me the way that life evolved in the first place and then the way people evolved from those first assumed primitive life forms. I take it this is known since evolution is a scientific certainty.

I am looking for an explanation for the way new genetic information evolved. I understand that a horse has about four times the amount of DNA as a simple cell amoeba. I'm looking for an explanation for the way the genetic information of the eyes, ears, lungs, etc, came into existance.

Natural selection can change gene frequencies, and sometimes a complete loss of genetic information. We need a gain in DNA, and that gain has to somehow assemble itself to produce the things mentioned above. Tell us all about the evidence that you have that demostrates this. Nature should about with examples of such things if evolution is true, and proven.

 

[Micaiah]

Deleted

 

[Micaiah]

Deleted

 

[BWV 1080]

True, and flawed theories are almost always falsified. Evolution has not been falsified in its 150 year history despite many, many attempts. This speaks volumes for how accurate it is likely to be.

For a theory to be falsified it has to be falsifiable. Only the parts of evolutionary biology that everyone accepts (natural selection determining moth color based upon available camoflage etc.) are empirically verifiable. The proposition that the mechanics of the human eye arose from random chance is untestable, just as one cannot disprove the existence of God or the Easter Bunny.