Isn't the theory of evolution more a social science than a pure science?

Question

Isn't the theory of evolution more a social science than a pure science?

Answer 1

Using this definition of social science:

"The study of human society and of individual relationships in and to society.

"A scholarly or scientific discipline that deals with such study, generally regarded as including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history."

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-scie...

Then the study of evolution is science.

"Pure science is defined as a basic knowledge it developes\Basic science is the heart of all discoveries, and progress is based on well controlled experiments.

Pure science is dependent upon deductions from demonstrated truths, or is studied without regard to practical applications."

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-scie...

Evolution includes biology, anatomy and physiology, and many of the other sciences. It uses experiments, and deductions from established truths.

Evolution has been demonstrated through selective breeding, deep ocean core samples, fossils and the known history of life on the planet. That's just a few of the sources.

The best site to learn about evolution is:

National Academy of Sciences: (Guidebook on Evolution)

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

To quote from this source:



"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

Answer 2

In what way could evolution be considered a *social* science?

It's the way organisms change in response to the environment, with some changes leading to an individual being weaker (therefore less likely to breed and pass on the genes) while other changes make the individual better adapted to the environment (therefore more likely to breed and have more chance of passing on its genes).

It's biology (and part of the basis of medicine, among other sciences).

Answer 3

Evolution is neither a social or hard science. It is a theory in the science of biology.

Answer 4

" Pure science ", Jack? No; hard science, Jack!

Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is a FACT, Jack!

The theory of evolution by natural selection is the well- supported- by- evidence theory that explains this fact.

Do you ever think you will get it, Jack?

Answer 5

Evolution occurs.  There are many theories *about* evolution, but the main one, Natural Selection, is as much a fact as the theory of General Relativity.

There have been some really bad social theories that misuse natural selection, but stabbing someone with a screwdriver doesn't make a screwdriver a bad tool, it just makes the stabber a bad person.  It certainly doesn't invalidate screwdrivers.

Answer 6

Is it is theoretical science and yet to have any concrete proof.

We do know we evolved, most people have trouble with the primate relation but since us and chimps share 99 plus percent of the same DNA it begs the question.

Will we ever find out, maybe just after we have an effective cure for the common cold.

Answer 7

There is very little that can be called pure science. Since many of the things concerning evolution cannot be proven in black or white it will never be pure, but then neither is religion.pp

Answer 8

icabodwa is somewhat incorrect in his statement  regarding whether evolution is a fact or not...

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."

Micro-evolution or descent with modification is experimentally verifiable, repeatable and observable. And scientific "facts" are usually very few in number as they must hold true for every instance forever which is not always verifiable.

Macro-evolution is mainly accepted because to do otherwise is to risk banishment, ridicule, loss of employment or funding. There are many evidences that contradict macro-evolution or Neo-Darwinian theory such as the many thousands of cave drawings, paintings, petroglyphs, fabrics and artifacts that clearly show man and dinosaurs co-existed until fairly recent times. There are also recent discoveries of red blood cells and soft tissue found in several T-Rex and other fossil bones that indicate they did not die off 70 million years ago.



The published and peer-reviewed evidence compiled by over 30 years of research by Dr Robert Gentry (Halos.com) in polonium "halo's" shows that Pre-Cambrian rocks were formed almost instantly and not from gradual cooling over millions of years. This evidence falsifies the ages of those rocks and the fossils they contain as well as the accepted radiometric dating methods which presume that the decay rates are the same as we see today and that they have never changed in the past.

Descent with modification does occur in micro-evolution but that is incorrectly transposed into macro-evolution which is not observable or experimentally verifiable...it is based on indirect observations and assumptions which are false, based on other evidences, which are summarily rejected by science because to do otherwise would crumble the pillars of evolution and lead to a huge paradigm shift that no one is willing to contemplate. Science is not willing to admit such a huge flaw and would be denigrated as being a bunch of fools so they have a vested interest in keeping the theory intact AT ALL COSTS.

Ben Stein's new movie...Expelled...attempts to document this.