Why is it the THEORY of evolution still?

Question

coolj821- thanks i was begining to think noone would answer

Answer 1

I think we all know what evolution means, but a theory in science is the explanation that best fits observable natural phenomonon.  If you are holding a glass in your hand and let it go, it's most likely going to fall to the floor and break.  Newton made the theories of physics which describe how it travels and how fast, but not why it happens. There is still a very poor understanding of what gravity is or actually how it works.  Einstein provided more theories, and quantum mechanics still more, but the last word is by no means in.  That doesn't mean, however, that gravity doesn't exist or that if you drop the glass it won't fall and break.

So, at it's best, science never claims to have the final word on anything - hence the word theory.  If anybody comes up with a better idea for observed phenomenon, science should be open minded enough to consider it.

However, creationists "theories" contain so much misinformation, so much flawed basic science, and so little factual data (actually none) that scientists will never look at them seriously.  It's not because anybody is a terrible person or hates Christians or God, it's that none of it rises to the level of scientific discussion.

Answer 2

Because Christians still protest this. They still think it was done in 7 days. By the way, these are the same boneheads that believe that our planet is the only sign of intelligent life. These are some really arrogant believers.

Answer 3

Causal statements aren't truth-functional.  In other words, they can't be proved or disproved.  We don't observe evolution; we observe fossils, genetic patterns over a few generations, etc, and then seek an explanation.  Evolution explains our observations better than competing theories.  

___Even gravity is a theory.  In fact the laws of motion are all subject to the qualification that they don't make their presuppositions explicit.  The universe exists as an integrated thing, connected by the invisible force of gravity, and at smaller scales, by ionic bonds, nuclear bonds, etc.

___But this talk of "bonds" and "invisible forces" treats the things of the world as if they are intrinsically distinct from one another, and that is precisely what the connections effected by these forces contradict.

___Human intelligence renders the world intelligible by treating its objects as unambiguously distinct and plural, and by putting them together in sequence when we perform effectual manipulations on them.  Our thoughts (as opposed to our feelings, hunches, and intuitions) are made of distinct elements strung together in a linear form in language.  These thoughts are the only kind that are truth functional, or provable.

___(Science isolates its variables.  We choose certain portions of the visual field, distinguishing an object of attention from a background or periphery.  We physically decontextualize a material object when we pick it up to move it around.  These singling-out phenomena permeate human activity.)  

___Newton recognized that gravity was a property of matter.  A "property" doesn't exist on its own, but inheres in a thing of the sort that can at least be treated as existing on its own, in this case, every material thing, from a BB to a "Tickle-me-Elmo" to the planet Jupiter.  

___If gravity is a property of matter, though, then with respect to this one property, every thing in the universe extends to infinity and occupies the same space at the same time, though at different "densities".  This is a very messy (unintelligible) way to look at things, and Newton had to treat gravity as a separate sort of thing, an "invisible force" in order to mathematize it.  

___So at a fundamental level, the theory of gravity isn't unambiguously true.  

___It is precisely the format of human intelligibility, and our requirement that its statements be verifiable, that makes the totality of our science subject to qualifications such as these.  Science doesn't yield absolute knowledge, only the practical knowledge that we get when we at least temporarily set aside some of the messy integration and connectedness of the real universe, and try to compensate for it after-the-fact, as Newton did.  

___The theory of evolution isn't in danger of being overturned anytime soon.  Its biggest danger is the extravagant claims some people make of it.  Intelligent design was originally a more moderate claim that evolution wasn't incompatible with  something like an aspect of intelligence in the universe.  It was hijacked by both the right (creationists looking for a foot in the door), and the left (atheists looking for a straw man).  And the rest is recent history.

___But science doesn't extend to that sort of domain.  The question isn't one of science, but of philosophy.

Edit: Lest the above sound too relativistic, it's worth remembering that a firm shot with a 2x4 to the side of the head will disable one's capacity to doubt the world's existence.  Being knocked unconscious, or to a lesser extent, having one's consciousness impared by extreme pain or emotion, fever, or fatugue, demonstrate the fundamentality and priority of the world over the capacity of consciousness to doubt it.  This happens in an experiential, extra-logical way, that lies beyond the reach of logical description and argument.  Conversely, the world's existence can't be argued FOR, in a fully compelling way, either.

___Our descriptions of the world begin WITHIN a phenomenological context, and don't reach directly beyond that context.  The inability of logical argument and science to prove certain things doesn't mean that they don't obtain.  Postmodernist skepticism is a consequence of taking the reach of one's arguments too seriously.  

___And that we can't pin down absolute truths within the format required for human intelligibility doesn't mean that there's no absolute reality.  It only means that it's beyond our comprehension.

Answer 4

Because I AM REAL and you are NOT

                                        pond scum

                       http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pkYQRNsjd...

Answer 5

To affirm and extend coolj821's response, let me add the following:

1.  Terms in science have specific meanings that differ from the common understandings by non-scientists.  Cool (if I may be so familiar as to use his first name) is absolutely correct in that regard.

2.  Facts are objective descriptions of natural events.  For example, the forelimbs of humans, apes, bats, hippopotomi, and whales all share the same basic structure of five phelanges, a radius, an ulna and a humorus as homologous (similar in form) structures.

3.  Laws and principles are descriptions of basic, consistently occurring facts such as the laws of genetic inheritance as described by Gregor Mendel.

4.  Hypotheses are testable statements that attempt to account for or relate a set of similar observations.  Perhaps the homology described above has a discernable pattern that leads to an understanding of the facts and laws.

5.  Finally, theories are highly refined explanations of a wide ranging set of facts and confirmed hypotheses from many sources and disciplines that result in a coherent account of a large body of natural events.  For example, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how such homologies came about while accounting for all the facts and laws that bear on the question.

Facts, laws and principles DESCRIBE natural events, theories EXPLAIN natural events.  Laws never become theories and theories never become laws; they serve different functions in the practice of science.  All statements in science are testable and falsifiable given contradictory facts that can't be accounted for by the accepted theory.  In that case, the theory is either modified to accommodate the new information without abandoning the general form of the original theory or the old theory is scrapped for the new one.  The demise of Lamark's theory of inheritance in favor of Darwin's is a good example.

This is how the practice of science has progressed for centuries resulting in the massive body of knowledge and the ability to predict outcomes in nature we have today.  It seems to have served humankind rather well so far.  Do we know and understand everything?  Of course not, but note that when confronted with a terrible illness, for example, the vast majority of us turn to a physician trained in the sciences of biology, chemistry and physics instead of a shaman who consults the entrails of a chicken.

Let me recommend to you a little book of fewer than 170 pages of text by Michael Shermer, Ph.D.  Dr. Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" is an excellent overview of the development of the theory of evolution and how science differs from religion in matters of understanding the universe and our place in it.  One is not better than the other, they just ask different kinds of questions.

I hope this helps.

Answer 6

In science, a theory is something that ties together multiple facts. The reason people who don't believe evolution to be true look at the word "theory" so disdainfully, is because they don't realize that a scientific theory is vastly different than a theory in the vernacular. I think i phrased that right....

Answer 7

A theory remains as is since there is no way for it to become a fact. and to do so, experiments must be done. Same goes with the Big Bang theory.. no way to test them out.

Answer 8

In science, a theory is a testable model that describes natural phenomena. Take the Newtonian "falling apple" example. An apple will fall when dropped. This is a fact. WHY the apple falls is gravatational theory.

In a sense, evolution is the same. We can observe change in allele frequencies over time, speciation, etc. Evolution in itself is fact. Why evolution takes place (ie, natural selection) is theory.

Answer 9

It has been proven a fact that animals have changed over time as much as anything can be proved.  That is what evolution is.  That should be enough to say that it has graduated to the fact level in spite of misguided attempts to claim otherwise.  It is certainly on my list of undeniable facts.  Natural selection as the mechanism behind evolution is easily over 99.9% certain.

Answer 10

To simplify things...

A scientific theory is an idea that was tested, retested, and continues to be tested without being disproved.  Essentially, it is an idea that no one has been able to find proof it is wrong for.

A scientific law--by comparison--is a theory that scientists have gotten so tired of testing and finding correct that no one will bother arguing  about it anymore.  Or, another way of looking at it, is that a scientific law is one where scientists have run out of ways to try and falsify it or find it incorrect.

As far as viewing science as "just a theory" itself...

...after a fashion, it is right but it's a self-supporting theory that--if ever proven false--resolves itself...

Answer 11

STILL WHAT? anyways-anyways we humans for the majority have to find justification for things we dont know anything about. if man evolved from monkeys we should she some rocks showing some transition. we should just simply accept we are alive and live- take for example a brick is a brick its used to build houses but  a theorist would have to find out why it is the way it is. the way it is, is because it was built that way.

Answer 12

Evolution is speculative so is divine creation . No  clear evidence. All still based on belief.

Answer 13

It is a Theory, because it can neither be proven or disprove, science links it to be true, but can not make certain connections which means it can not be proven fully lending it to still be a theory.  

Gravity was a theory for a long time, until it became a law.

But evolution will almost never become a law, because it is recently that many scientist are beginning to lean more toward adaptation.

I personally don't believe in evolution, not enough solid facts, that don't have contradictions.

Answer 14

because the christians won't let it be accepted as fact.

Answer 15

Everything is a theory you can't proove something in the past beyond it being a fact, because you didn't experience it yourself.

You can't proove something as "real" using science because all science is theory too. (bear in mind any science is not reprovable unless reality is static, as we are never at the same point in the time of timespace (and space itself is always changing it's arrangement) (and it isn't we have yet to find a beginning or end to prove that and history does not support science as a linear trend - however there have been 'specifications' that keep the general common ground - but there is no evidence prooving it is static. beyond two points within a larger time scale or between multiple points , but i cannot account for all points or accurately address historical facts and statements other than by discrediting them and saying that the statements are false because they don't fit with the current theories - with no other validity beyond that.)

I think that in many cases people seem totally devote to some theories.. historically though scientific theory has gotten rewritten time and time again.

There is no long term evidence stating we live in a static and continuous universe. There is however ' a logical' and 'functional' system - which utilizes static theories.  It has been useful to some so far, but reality isn't wholely logical if you are a sentient entity.

There are no rules other than the ones you believe in.

beyond any shadow of doubt to the realm of the actual - while it easy to feel shackled everyone will have their recognition of that freedom when they are wholely themselves.