What's with the "Evolution is a Theory" crowd?

[hithesh]

I don't understand how Christians find fault with evolution being taught because it's a theory, and not a fact?

It seems they are ignorant of what a theory means.

We don't argue that the "Theory of Gravity" needs to be taught in a different way because it's a "Theory" because if it was taught as a fact it would be like this: "I'm holding a pencil in my hand, when I let go, see if it falls down or up, and you can infer whatever you want from that"

A theory is taught when it is the only sound explanation of the Evidence, if there was another sound explanation of similar facts, than it should be taught alongside Evolution, but currently there is not another competing theory that is just as scientifically sound.

ID, is not a competing theory, it doesn't use the body of evidence observed to determine evolution, to derive its (ID)interpretation. ID uses "scraps" to formulate it's ideas.

To look a the distinction between theory and fact, let's examine the "Holocaust". "The Holocaust did occur", and the "Holocaust did not occur" are both technically theories, but we know which is the sound theory by examining the evidence at hand: "The camps, the testimonies, the survivors, etc.."

To argue the holocaust needs to be a taught a different way because it is a theory and not a fact, makes no sense at all. If it did make sense than teachers wouldn't be saying much at all, such as saying, "We don't know if the holocaust occurred at all".

A Theory is the most probable explanation of the evidence at hand. Evolution does not have a competing theory that is even remotely more probable.

If you want to infer that six day creationism is a competing scientific theory, then show me evidence that a snake can talk?

(It should be noted that evolution is a fact and a theory: "Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.")

Note: I also wanted to mention that the idea that the theory of evolution is "Crisis", is as ridicoulous as infering "Christianity is in Crisis, because of a debate "on the assurance of salvation", or that a couples marriage is in "crisis" because they can't figure out what to eat for dinner.

 

[gluadys]

To look a the distinction between theory and fact, let's examine the "Holocaust". "The Holocaust did occur", and the "Holocaust did not occur" are both technically theories, but we know which is the sound theory by examining the evidence at hand: "The camps, the testimonies, the survivors, etc.."

To argue the holocaust needs to be a taught a different way because it is a theory and not a fact, makes no sense at all. If it did make sense than teachers wouldn't be saying much at all, such as saying, "We don't know if the holocaust occurred at all".

Generally good post, but I would not say "The Holocaust did occur" is a theory. It is either a statement of fact or it is not. And the evidence shows it is a statement of fact.

A Theory of the Holocaust would be an explanation of the event. What were the causative factors? What were the mechanisms (physical, psychological, economic, sociological) that allowed it to happen?

Similarly, the evidence that species change and diversify shows that "Evolution happens" is a statement of fact.

And the Theory of Evolution explains the why evolution happens in terms of causative factors e.g. mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

 

[hithesh]

Generally good post, but I would not say "The Holocaust did occur" is a theory. It is either a statement of fact or it is not. And the evidence shows it is a statement of fact.

[...]

And the Theory of Evolution explains the why evolution happens in terms of causative factors e.g. mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

I appreciate the clarification.

But i think it's worth clarifying what it means to be a "statement of fact", because it seems to me that a statement of fact is just an evolved form of a theory, that becomes just too inarguable. It becomes as such by the numerous observations, and means of measurements, that leave it in such an indisputable state, that if one were to even attempt to differ, that it would it would be deemed "irrational".

Similarly, the evidence that species change and diversify shows that "Evolution happens" is a statement of fact.

Microevolution is a "statement of fact", while it's broader brother macro-evolution, is still a "theory".

A Theory of the Holocaust would be an explanation of the event. What were the causative factors? What were the mechanisms (physical, psychological, economic, sociological) that allowed it to happen?

The causative factors: would be an explanation (theory) of the factors. It would be comparable to the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection.

It all comes back to this idea that i heard in philosophy class, "That everything is an interpretation", while the objects we are observing are what are real, any inference of what they are or what they mean is an interpretation.

In a broad sense the objects are facts, and all interpretations are "theories", we just have different terms for various forms of theories, such as "statements of fact", or even "scientific theory", which imply a high degree of measurement, evidence, and reason to the interpretation.

 

[billwald]

The typical Christian has no concept of "theory," "hypotheses," "fact," "evidence" . . . and most preachers like it that way. That being said, it is better to NOT mix science and history, thinking the words mean the same things in both studies.

 

[random_guy]

The typical Christian has no concept of "theory," "hypotheses," "fact," "evidence" . . . and most preachers like it that way. That being said, it is better to NOT mix science and history, thinking the words mean the same things in both studies.

Let's be fair, a typical person has no concept of these things. Most people probably think theories evolve into laws. I think the problem lies largely on our education system.

 

[hithesh]

The typical Christian has no concept of "theory," "hypotheses," "fact," "evidence" . . . and most preachers like it that way. That being said, it is better to NOT mix science and history, thinking the words mean the same things in both studies.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– St. Augustine: "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]"

One of my Professors who is also a Pastor, was telling us the other day, the place were you find the most gullible people on earth is in Churches. It's sad but so true.

These same people are the ones who assume that the teaching of evolution in science classes is the cause of disbelief, without realizing it's not science, but the church.

 

[Deamiter]

I appreciate the clarification.

But i think it's worth clarifying what it means to be a "statement of fact", because it seems to me that a statement of fact is just an evolved form of a theory, that becomes just too inarguable. It becomes as such by the numerous observations, and means of measurements, that leave it in such an indisputable state, that if one were to even attempt to differ, that it would it would be deemed "irrational".

Absolutely not. Theories never evolve into facts, they are built on facts. Theories never become literally inarguable, though practically you're quite right there.

Just because a theory is well supported does not make a factual statement, in essense, a theory will always be a description of what we see whereas facts (in this context) are what we see directly.

A particular theory can be an accurate explanation, but it will never be proof or anything more than a description of the facts we've been able to gather.

 

[hithesh]

Absolutely not. Theories never evolve into facts, they are built on facts. Theories never become literally inarguable, though practically you're quite right there.

Just because a theory is well supported does not make a factual statement, in essence, a theory will always be a description of what we see whereas facts (in this context) are what we see directly.

A particular theory can be an accurate explanation, but it will never be proof or anything more than a description of the facts we've been able to gather.

Well, i believe the original post I responded to, claimed that the "holocaust occurred" is a statement of fact.

If this is not so, than i assume a statement of fact is only the evidence that led to such a conclusion, while the conclusion is an "interpretation of facts".

I don't see how, the "holocaust occurred", is much different than assuming that "evolution occurred"  (and macro/micro levels), other than one "theory" has more evidence for it than the other (at least at the macro level).

Both "theories", or interpretations of the evidence, are still more sound than any other theory/interpretations of the evidence, than alternative theories explaining the same evidence.

 

[gluadys]

I don't see how, the "holocaust occurred", is much different than assuming that "evolution occurred"  (and macro/micro levels), other than one "theory" has more evidence for it than the other (at least at the macro level).

Your error is in thinking these were first assumed and then shown to be facts. That is not the case. Both were shown to be facts by direct observation first. Then theories were developed to set the facts in a framework of cause and effect. How is it that these facts form part of history/nature?

Btw, you seem to have a misconception of what macro-evolution is. It is a term not much used in science, though in frequent use in creationist literature. When it is used in science, it refers to evolution at and beyond the level of species i.e. to the emergence of new species. And the emergence of new species has also been observed.

Is this your understanding of macroevolution? If not, what do you mean by macroevolution and why are you not using the scientific meaning?