Is evolution a theory?

[TheReasoner]

Simple question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I'm leaving the terms of the poll undefined, so please leave a post with your own definitions of 'evolution' and 'theory', and perhaps a short explanation of your answer.

Danke!

Yes. It's a theory. My own definition? I'll stick to the scientific definition, thanks. It's a theory, and that word does not at all mean what the creationists appear to think it does.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It sometimes helps to make the comparison with the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity.

 

[elahmine]

From the power point in my honors Astronomy Class. Composed by my professor with a Ph.d.

A hypothesis is an idea of how some area of the Universe exists.
A theory is well tested and they often use scientific laws
A scientific law is seen to be accurate basically: fact

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By verified I mean it the hypothesis has been tested and confirmed to be compatible with the rest of science. Usually experiment and peer review verify hypothesis.

The theories which actually get referred to as such like the "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Relativity" have a very large base of supporting evidence, however simple hypothesis such as "blue sky is caused by Rayleigh Scattering" are technically also theories once verified.

As far as I'm aware, Rayleigh scattering does cause a blue sky (source).

Definition of Micro-Evolution: Evolution as described until I feel it violates my religious beliefs.

I often see Creationists get a lot of slack for using the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, but they're real, genuine terms that predate Creationist use - they mean evolution within and between species, respectively.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. It's a theory. My own definition? I'll stick to the scientific definition, thanks. It's a theory, and that word does not at all mean what the creationists appear to think it does.

If your definition is the scientific one, then what's the scientific one? And who's to say the scientific definition is the definition, to the extent that Creationists can't have their own?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From the power point in my honors Astronomy Class. Composed by my professor with a Ph.d.

A hypothesis is an idea of how some area of the Universe exists.
A theory is well tested and they often use scientific laws
A scientific law is seen to be accurate basically: fact

Personally, outside of historical throwbacks, I'm uncomfortable using the term 'law' in scientific nomenclature; it implies absolute knowledge where none exist - but then, that's just my personal preference

Also, you don't seem to have defined a 'theory', only described it as 'well tested' - Creationism is, in a sense, well tested, is it not?

 

[CabVet]

As someone else already said, descent with modification (a.k.a. evolution) is an observable fact, much like dropping a rock and watching it go down to the ground is an observable result of gravity. The theory of evolution (an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through natural processes) is a scientific theory supported by many different lines of evidence.

 

[elahmine]

Personally, outside of historical throwbacks, I'm uncomfortable using the term 'law' in scientific nomenclature; it implies absolute knowledge where none exist - but then, that's just my personal preference

Also, you don't seem to have defined a 'theory', only described it as 'well tested' - Creationism is, in a sense, well tested, is it not?

No I wouldn't define Young Earth literal interpretation of Genesis Creationism as well tested. However I was missing a word in my theory definition. The word hypotheses/explanation would fit there after well tested. You're right knowledge can change, but scientific laws are both well tested and observed too be true. Like the law of gravity, our understanding of it has changed over the years; however, gravity still goes. The scientific law, while there's always room for new explanations and ideas, is the most concrete idea we have. They are unlikely to change in their essence. However, if new data comes up that disproves a law you don't ignore. Scientific law is the technical term, and I quite like it.

 

[Naraoia]

To me, a theory is just an explanatory framework for facts. The big brother of a hypothesis, if you like. It doesn't have to be particularly well-tested to qualify. (String theory, anyone?)

That depends if you honor the marriage of evolution and genetics. Evolution is a theory, genetics is a fact.

Genetics is a field of study

If you want to join them together then you have talk origin making statements like "evolution is a fact and a theory".

Which is a correct statement regardless of genetics. Lamarck, the Darwins etc. had theories of evolution without the faintest idea about genetics. And like it or not, evolution does happen. For the really impatient ones, it can come up with interesting stuff in a matter of days.

Genetics today is considered to be 99.9999% accurate.

In what? Where in the world did you pull that number from?

In other words, if we use an extremely accurate test to jail people for something that's rare in the overall populace (e.g., "predisposition to child abuse/terrorism/liberalism"), then using those statistics, a full 10% of people jailed by the test would be completely innocent.

Scary.

And tangential .

I love how you added liberalism to the list of horrible offences. I don't think that predisposition is all that rare, though

micro-evolution is a theory, Macro-evolution is a hypothesis or less.

Technically, all of this is macroevolution

Definition of Micro-Evolution: Evolution as described until I feel it violates my religious beliefs.

Win.

 

[TheReasoner]

If your definition is the scientific one, then what's the scientific one? And who's to say the scientific definition is the definition, to the extent that Creationists can't have their own?

You can't arbitrarily define such things! A scientific theory is clearly defined and you cannot just up and make up another definition legitimizing crap that has no real basis! In the scientific world a theory is a hypothesis (again, strict definitions apply) which has been subjected to rigorous testing and found to consistently be an accurate and good description of reality. To use another word, in the case of evolution we are talking about a-posteriori knowledge. Creationists cannot "have their own" simply because they do not have anything which fits the definition.
You can't just make up stuff and claim the made up stuff has just as much right to life as that which is empirically known to be true. We can call horses fish and dogs bicycles. It would be a misuse of the respective words and the claims are nonsensical - just as saying that 'creationists can have their own theory' is nonsensical. Aye, in a common day-to-day use among normal people it might indeed be accurate, but the problem arises because they also claim that their views are scientifically accurate, that they are valid and on-par with Theory of Evolution wherein the word 'theory' is the scientific definition, not the "common" one.
In this respect they are like people bringing plastic butterknives to a firefight and insisting they're rambo, and that their plastic knives are more than a match for the real guns, which they insist are made up. You might say that there is a theory that the earth is doughnut shaped and rests like a halo on an intergalactic ant's head - but this will be nothing but mad ramblings. And in fact, this intergalactic donut-haloed ant "theory" I just concocted is just as valid as the creationist mythos for one simple reason: It is known to be wrong. It also does not fit the strict definition of the word theory when used in a scientific context.

So, no WC. The creationists cannot 'have their own valid theory'. It does not work like that.

 

[idscience]

think that predisposition is all that rare, though

Technically, all of this is macroevolution

You have to say that because there is no macro. So lets just say change over time proves everything. That way you don't have to do or prove anything.

 

[TheReasoner]

You have to say that because there is no macro. So lets just say change over time proves everything. That way you don't have to do or prove anything.

There is, id. Evolution is a fact, and that's all the way from LUCA - whatever that was - to today. Life evolves, even between species. We're the result of it, and as are all other lifeforms we know of.
The link has validity, there are many observed instances of speciation, thereby serving as solid evidence for macroevolution. There's more of course. In fact, there is nothing pointing towards the claim that "macroevolution" does not occur. The id and the creationist groups have been duped.

God I have no problems with, just FYI.

But; You are actually making a huge mistake. I've made it, when I was a creationist. So I know what it's like. Part of it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect; You don't know enough to identify your own mistakes as mistakes. That's almost okay, it is mitigating anyway. But it does not change the fact that you're fighting for the propagation of one of the most solid and best articulated attacks on the christian faith one can really come up with. If Creationists or you guys are right in many/most of your claims... Well, then Christianity is empirically falsified. It's that simple. So... Well, you should really do as Wittgenstein "suggested", and only speak of what you actually know. Not of what you don't know.
So... Sign up for some university courses on microbiology, biochemistry and take it from there. If you understand the subjects you'll find that evolution does occur, how it occurs and why creationism and id are indeed absurd notions. Not that this invalidates God. Not at all. THe orthodox church has never had any problems with evolution. The catholic church has no problems with it, they even embrace it happily. As do the orthodox. And many or possibly most lutheran churches, many pentecostals and so on. I hate to tell you this, but you've been duped. Fooled into one of the biggest lies in the christian community today. A predominately american lie, I should add. It's not nearly as big outside the US. Thankfully.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No I wouldn't define Young Earth literal interpretation of Genesis Creationism as well tested. However I was missing a word in my theory definition. The word hypotheses/explanation would fit there after well tested. You're right knowledge can change, but scientific laws are both well tested and observed too be true. Like the law of gravity, our understanding of it has changed over the years; however, gravity still goes. The scientific law, while there's always room for new explanations and ideas, is the most concrete idea we have. They are unlikely to change in their essence. However, if new data comes up that disproves a law you don't ignore. Scientific law is the technical term, and I quite like it.

I don't think it's the technical term; in general, philosophers of science regard the theory as the highest echelon of science - a hypothesis (claim or explanation) verified through prediction and experimentation. What you call a 'law' seems to be a mysterious blend of 'theory' (verified claim/explanation) and 'fact' (observation), and I've never seen it used as a modern unit of scientific nomenclature.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You can't arbitrarily define such things! A scientific theory is clearly defined and you cannot just up and make up another definition legitimizing crap that has no real basis! In the scientific world a theory is a hypothesis (again, strict definitions apply) which has been subjected to rigorous testing and found to consistently be an accurate and good description of reality. To use another word, in the case of evolution we are talking about a-posteriori knowledge. Creationists cannot "have their own" simply because they do not have anything which fits the definition.

You seem to be talking about different things - the scientific community has an agreed upon definition, the 'scientific' definition, which cannot be easily redefined (any more than the scientific definition of a planet can be easily changed). However, by that same token, the Creationist community can indeed have their own definition - who gave scientists the sole right to define a term? In what Absolute Dictionary is the term written, and who gave scientists the Quill

You can't just make up stuff and claim the made up stuff has just as much right to life as that which is empirically known to be true. We can call horses fish and dogs bicycles. It would be a misuse of the respective words and the claims are nonsensical - just as saying that 'creationists can have their own theory' is nonsensical. Aye, in a common day-to-day use among normal people it might indeed be accurate, but the problem arises because they also claim that their views are scientifically accurate, that they are valid and on-par with Theory of Evolution wherein the word 'theory' is the scientific definition, not the "common" one.

Bingo. When restricting ourselves to the scientific definition, we qualify the term to mean one thing: the technical usage of scientists. That doesn't mean there cannot be non-scientists definitions.

In this respect they are like people bringing plastic butterknives to a firefight and insisting they're rambo, and that their plastic knives are more than a match for the real guns, which they insist are made up. You might say that there is a theory that the earth is doughnut shaped and rests like a halo on an intergalactic ant's head - but this will be nothing but mad ramblings. And in fact, this intergalactic donut-haloed ant "theory" I just concocted is just as valid as the creationist mythos for one simple reason: It is known to be wrong. It also does not fit the strict definition of the word theory when used in a scientific context.

So, no WC. The creationists cannot 'have their own valid theory'. It does not work like that.

I disagree, it absolutely does. Everyone defines their own terms, and jargon is born when groups of experts in the same field agree upon terms for niche and specialised concepts. That doesn't mean other people can't use the same word to mean something different - 'kernel' can refer to sweetcorn and computer programming. Likewise, 'theory' can mean something in scientific parlance and in Creationist parlance, with equal validity - we scientists do not get the sole ownership over the use of a word. We can't slap Creationists with copyright lawsuits because they didn't use a word in The Correct and Specified Way.

You are right that there is one scientific theory, and that they are wrong to assert that Creationism is a theory according to the scientific definition - but ours is not the only definition, and it is the height of arrogance to assert we are the sole owners of a word.

 

[TheReasoner]

You seem to be talking about different things - the scientific community has an agreed upon definition, the 'scientific' definition, which cannot be easily redefined (any more than the scientific definition of a planet can be easily changed). However, by that same token, the Creationist community can indeed have their own definition - who gave scientists the sole right to define a term? In what Absolute Dictionary is the term written, and who gave scientists the Quill


Bingo. When restricting ourselves to the scientific definition, we qualify the term to mean one thing: the technical usage of scientists. That doesn't mean there cannot be non-scientists definitions.


I disagree, it absolutely does. Everyone defines their own terms, and jargon is born when groups of experts in the same field agree upon terms for niche and specialised concepts. That doesn't mean other people can't use the same word to mean something different - 'kernel' can refer to sweetcorn and computer programming. Likewise, 'theory' can mean something in scientific parlance and in Creationist parlance, with equal validity - we scientists do not get the sole ownership over the use of a word. We can't slap Creationists with copyright lawsuits because they didn't use a word in The Correct and Specified Way.

You are right that there is one scientific theory, and that they are wrong to assert that Creationism is a theory according to the scientific definition - but ours is not the only definition, and it is the height of arrogance to assert we are the sole owners of a word.

Alright, fair deal, they could create their own definition used within their own "field". However I'm not giving in this easily
There are various problems with this too.

1. Creationists often claim their own positions are valid scientific positions.
2. Creationists often use the word to create an illusion of validity to their own arbitrary claims, for example by the statement "An equally valid theory is..." queue arbitrary nonsense.
3. Creationists often use the word to discredit the scientific term, for example by the statement "It is only a theory"

IF they want to play at being scientists they should adhere to the principles, methods and definitions that apply. While they might use the word 'theory' about creationism in their own churches and circles (and that's -grudgingly- okay) they cannot also claim to be using a scientific definition when this is not the case. Viz. they cannot say "Evolution is just a theory, scientists even say so" and use the word theory as if the definition we use is the same as they use in their own circles. In other words I move that if they do want to use their own definition common decency and integrity dictates that they adjust statements accordingly, if they wish to define creationism as a theory or set of theories then the statement 'the theory of evolution' needs to be redefined. Perhaps to 'the scientific theory of evolution' or something along those lines. They cannot with integrity conjur up a definition which they use and then pretend it means the same and has the same validity as the scientific term. To use your example, it would be like trying to use the word 'kernel' as evidence that sweetcorn is a rather crucial component in operating systems for example; Such a mix-and-match use of word definitions cannot be said to be valid, can it?

My problem, thus, is that it seems creationists abuse the word by mixing definitions in order to discredit and confound any opposition. That is not something I am okay with to be honest. Now, if they were to say "The Theory of evolution is not a Law" that would be correct. They could even say that The scientific theory of evolution is an explanation for the development of life which is not shared by the creationists, who adhere to a non-scientific theory called intelligent design/creationism.". That would be a statement which is not at fault for definition abuse. Not as far as I can see anyway.

However, as they in my experience normally try to pass id and creationism both off as scientifically valid perceptions - which they are not - this is not the case of valid differences between different definitions of a word but rather an example of intellectual dishonest behavior.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Creationists often claim their own positions are valid scientific positions.

What about the ones who don't -- like me?

 

[TheReasoner]

[/LIST]
What about the ones who don't -- like me?

What you stand for is still not true. It is invalid and falsified. Goodness gracious, we disprove your notions every day in the lab and industry both. Ignoring that is... Not wise.
But a little less dishonesty is of course welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists often claim their own positions are valid scientific positions.

What about the ones who don't -- like me?

What you stand for is still not true.

So it doesn't matter either way, does it?

It's not what we say that really matters then, is it? it's what we are?

 

[TheReasoner]

So it doesn't matter either way, does it?

It's not what we say that really matters then, is it? it's what we are?

No. Dont make this into something it is not. AV, a position that is PROVEN wrong is not OK, is it? Whether you like it or not the fact remains: You're wrong. Proven wrong.
So it is no more okay than claiming the earth is flat, that USA is ten thousand years old, that the holocaust never happened or that no cars exist.

So, no. It is not "what you are". It is that you spread lies. Lying is a sin, didn't you know?

Tell me, when we KNOW your position is false - and potentially harmful to the human civilization, why should it be respected?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether you like it or not the fact remains: You're wrong. Proven wrong.

Who proved me wrong?

And either show me the proof, or I'll take your point like I do most of your others -- as emotional remarks, not scientific standpoints.

There are others here -- atheists, in fact -- that claim there is no such a thing as 'proof'; so this should be interesting.