Once again we have confusion as to what constitutes facts, theories, laws and what each is.
Let's start with definitions from the National Academy of Sciences:
http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Now, the only one I have problems with is the last one. The NAS has defined a supported theory. That's where you get the "well-substantiated". Since hypotheses and theories are falsifiable, both can be falsified, and over 99% are, in fact, falsified. But that doesn't stop them from being hypotheses and theories. They are just falsified theories instead of supported theories.
Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. There is no clear or sharp dividing line between them. Theories are not "grown up hypotheses"! Hypotheses tend to be more specific statements. An example would be: Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) is a growth factor for human skin fibroblasts. FGF is a protein that stimulates the division of human skin fibroblasts. Now you test the hypothesis in an attempt to show it to be wrong or false. If you fail, then the hypothesis is a supported hypothesis. If you succeed, the hypothesis is a falsified hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is supported; FGF got its name because it did stimulate the division of human skin fibroblasts.
Theories tend to be more general statements. This is where the gray area comes in. How general does a statement have to be before it moves from hypothesis to theory? There is no clear cut answer.
An example of a theory would be: Fibroblast growth factor is a growth factor for all mammalian mesodermal cells. Fibroblasts are a mesodermal cell but other mesodermal cells are bone cells, cartilage cells, and the cells that make up blood vessels. Now, the supported hypothesis of FGF for human skin fibroblasts becomes part of the theory. Laws involving cell replication also are part of the theory.
The theory can be either supported or falsified. But a theory doesn't stop being a theory when it is falsified. It simply moves from the short list of supported theories to the very long list of falsified theories. As it turns out, FGF is a growth factor for all the cell types I named in both humans and a number of other mammalian species: rats, mice, monkeys, and rabbits. So the theory that FGF is a growth factor for mammalian mesodermal cells is a supported theory. Notice we have not tested FGF on all mesodermal cell types from all mammals. The theory could still turn out to be wrong in part. Then it would be modified.
Now, part of the confusion comes because, when a theory is well-supported, we regard it as (provisionally) fact! Take round earth. That's a theory!But it is so well-supported that everyone considers it a "fact". We presume it is true and use round earth to plot the courses of ships and airplanes. When the ships and airplanes arrive where and when we calculated them to, based on round earth, that becomes still more support for round earth theory.
"Descent with modification" -- evolution -- is so well supported that we consider it to be (provisionally) fact, like round earth or gravity. Now, in gravity we argue exactly how gravity works: is it a fold of space, are particles exchanged, or is it a quantum phenomenon? But none of that argument stops apples from falling from trees. Like gravity, we argue exactly how the modification happens in evolution and exactly the twists and turns of individual lineages: are dinos or early reptiles the ancestors of birds, is most evolution by phyletic gradualism or allopatric speciation (punctuated equilibria), how important is symbiosis of microorganisms to modification? But God created by evolution and we evolved from ape-like ancestors no matter what the outcome of those arguments.
Let's start with definitions from the National Academy of Sciences:
http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Now, the only one I have problems with is the last one. The NAS has defined a supported theory. That's where you get the "well-substantiated". Since hypotheses and theories are falsifiable, both can be falsified, and over 99% are, in fact, falsified. But that doesn't stop them from being hypotheses and theories. They are just falsified theories instead of supported theories.
Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. There is no clear or sharp dividing line between them. Theories are not "grown up hypotheses"! Hypotheses tend to be more specific statements. An example would be: Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) is a growth factor for human skin fibroblasts. FGF is a protein that stimulates the division of human skin fibroblasts. Now you test the hypothesis in an attempt to show it to be wrong or false. If you fail, then the hypothesis is a supported hypothesis. If you succeed, the hypothesis is a falsified hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is supported; FGF got its name because it did stimulate the division of human skin fibroblasts.
Theories tend to be more general statements. This is where the gray area comes in. How general does a statement have to be before it moves from hypothesis to theory? There is no clear cut answer.
An example of a theory would be: Fibroblast growth factor is a growth factor for all mammalian mesodermal cells. Fibroblasts are a mesodermal cell but other mesodermal cells are bone cells, cartilage cells, and the cells that make up blood vessels. Now, the supported hypothesis of FGF for human skin fibroblasts becomes part of the theory. Laws involving cell replication also are part of the theory.
The theory can be either supported or falsified. But a theory doesn't stop being a theory when it is falsified. It simply moves from the short list of supported theories to the very long list of falsified theories. As it turns out, FGF is a growth factor for all the cell types I named in both humans and a number of other mammalian species: rats, mice, monkeys, and rabbits. So the theory that FGF is a growth factor for mammalian mesodermal cells is a supported theory. Notice we have not tested FGF on all mesodermal cell types from all mammals. The theory could still turn out to be wrong in part. Then it would be modified.
Now, part of the confusion comes because, when a theory is well-supported, we regard it as (provisionally) fact! Take round earth. That's a theory!But it is so well-supported that everyone considers it a "fact". We presume it is true and use round earth to plot the courses of ships and airplanes. When the ships and airplanes arrive where and when we calculated them to, based on round earth, that becomes still more support for round earth theory.
"Descent with modification" -- evolution -- is so well supported that we consider it to be (provisionally) fact, like round earth or gravity. Now, in gravity we argue exactly how gravity works: is it a fold of space, are particles exchanged, or is it a quantum phenomenon? But none of that argument stops apples from falling from trees. Like gravity, we argue exactly how the modification happens in evolution and exactly the twists and turns of individual lineages: are dinos or early reptiles the ancestors of birds, is most evolution by phyletic gradualism or allopatric speciation (punctuated equilibria), how important is symbiosis of microorganisms to modification? But God created by evolution and we evolved from ape-like ancestors no matter what the outcome of those arguments.
