Why do people question evolution because it's just a theory, but never question atomic theory?

Question

Evolution is a theory. The concept of an atom is theoretical. Most of science is based on ideas that are 99% likely, but not proven 100%. My question is simple: Why is the theory of evolution so controversial, but atomic theory is unquestioned?

If for whatever reason you feel that it is necessary to use a biblical quote or say that the Bible said something, please provide evidence that the Bible is true. After all, there are fossils to support evolution, but evolution is questioned by many. Therefore, for creationism to be true, there has to be some evidence to verify the Bible.

Sorry I wrote so much.

Just to clarify, when I said that nobody questions atomic theory I did not mean that some people were questioning the details of it. I meant that nobody is denying that matter is made of atoms.

Panacea, I don't think that anything you said is true. DNA can mutate. Why do you think exposure to UV rays can lead to cancer? Radiation can cause mutations. The idea that DNA never mutates goes against scientific research over the last decades and leads me to believe that you could not have taken a single class in biology in your entire life.

Based on a few answers, a clarification is needed. Animals didn't decide to evolve. Evolution is based on chance and not on will. Also, it doesn't involve a monkey giving birth to a human in one shot. A monkey would give birth to a monkey with a smaller tail. The new monkey mates with a monkey with a more capable brain, etc.

Answer 1

i think its because when science conflicts with spirituality, it creates controversy. you dont see people fussing over einstien's theory of relativity or something because it doesnt step on anyones toes

Answer 2

The problem is the word "theory" has a strict definition in science, and it's much stronger than the way most people use it. Something that is just a hypothesis must undergo rigorous testing and evaluation and peer review before it can finally reach the point of theory. (Thus, "String theory" is not actually a theory yet and shouldn't be called as such.)

Evolution isn't "just a theory". There is extremely strong evidence to the point that scientists accept it and have elevated it beyond just a hypothesis. Similarly with what you're calling atomic theory. Particle accelerators can easily detect the presence of atoms, as well as sub-atomic particles such as protons. The presence of atoms is far more than just a hypothesis; it has advanced to the full level of theory.

When non-scientists hear the scientific term "theory" they often misinterpret it and think it's just an idea being thrown around and other scientists blindly accept it. Wikipedia sums it up very well:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

This definition issue has created a lot of big problems for science, because people mistakenly think a theory is just an idea and nothing more.

Answer 3

Theories are scientific constructs. That means there is an objective system to test them. Atomic theory passes this process. Evolution does not. In other words, evolution has repeatedly been tested and failed. There is not a single intermediate form to be found from one species to another in any way. Not a single gene out of place. Not a single cell of bacteria mutating into another type of bacteria after going through millions of generations of replication. Further, the explanation evolution has for the origin of life directly contradicts one of the core principles of biology....Biogenesis - the observation that life can only come from other life and never from non life.

Contrast this with atomic theory which constantly is supported by scientific observation and leads to powerful new technologies that are useful. It has CONSTANTLY been questioned. It has actually been replaced somewhat by better theories that encompass it but also extend it.

You are right. Both evolution and atomic theory are scientific theories. However, atomic theory is right while evolution is wrong.

All you have to do to dispute this is to supply a scientific observation of evolution. This will earn you a noble prize, if you can do it.

Answer 4

Right evolution ...... so one day this group of apes gets together and decides that it would be so much more beneficial to them, survival of the fittest and all, if they had more developed brains and if their bodies were virtually hairless, so they concentrate really really hard as do their children and their childrens children and so forth. One day this part ape part human gives birth to a perfectly hairless pink little human baby- imagine the rejoicing that happened that day! Anyway, meanwhile, there is a sect of apes - descendents of some from that original group, who just somehow knew that nothing good would come of that evolutionary step, and how right they were, I mean look at all these weak minded, uneducated Christians, war over money and religion, destruction of the planet, boy were they right- so they just left well enough alone and continued on their happy lives, except a few of them thought life would be a LOT more fun if they had purple butts so those guys evolved into baboons!!
(This took place over several million years- all the while thousand and thousands of poor little lungfish are losing their lives left and right in an effort to evolve the lungs they somehow knew they would need!

I do have a question or two however, if this process of evolution took place over millions of years in small increments, then we are not looking for one missing link but millions of missing links - there is not one hole in the fossil record but millions of holes- where is the fossil record of plant evolution ??
And why, why why would a single celled organism that could split in two on its own and each live independently of each other, evolve into an organism that takes two coming together to create one new life that cannot live on its own??

You can continue saying that we are uneducated and simple minded but the fact is I have looked at the facts, with an open mind, even before I became a Christian. It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution where the facts are just not scientific and they don't hold water. Most athiests and evolutionists I know of say they have read the Bible, what I want to know is have you read it starting out trying to disprove it or did you read it with an open mind, trying to understand and study from the point of view that it was written in instead of a modern understanding??

Hey here is a really fun article you can ponder :
Meet Gaspy - the Lungfish
http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

Answer 5

Fossils could have been created when the earth was created... what evidence do you have that the dinosaurs actually lived?.. oh.. nevermind... it won't matter to me anyway... whatever proof you come up with could have been created that way just to confound the wise.

ok... atomic theory... hmmm... I don't believe that I hear anyone saying that it is FACT like I do evolutionists talking about evolution... scientists (real ones) still recognize it as theory until they can get better knowledge... which they have done a good job.. creating experiments and having them come out as they should if their theory were true...

on the other hand.... college students have been studying generation after generation of animals every year for many years.. at least 60 or 70 years... I forget when species studies first started... the monk with the beans... etc... but anyway...

now.. how many students do research every year in college? 100,000? and how many generations of fruit flies do they grow? 70? 80? so that is 7 or 8 million generations every year of fruit flies... hmmm... and in that time.. just how many of those fruit flies have produced a fly of a different SPECIES? ok.... give up? NONE!!! NOT ONE!!! You say it takes millions of years to produce a change in species? ok... then if you do get a change... who is it going to mate with? a new species.. one sample... cannot mate with any other species and produce a sexually viable offspring...

ok... another point... if evolution is so slow... why do we not see a complete spectrum of species on the earth today? did it suddenly stop producing new species when we started observing?... it seems to me that there should still be living "missing links"... after all... weren't they better than the apes?

.. ok.. and.. don't give me the "adaptation" theory... that is NOT a change in species... it is only the survival of those who are in the best condition to do so... and they already exist.

Answer 6

It is a misunderstanding of the concept of theory
In science theory doesn't mean the same thing as it does to non-science folk.
Theory can mean a proven idea that is accepted, and by the way, here's the proof - to a scientist
To a non-scientist, a theory is an unproven idea that just sounds good.
Creationists are frightened and confused. In their hands is the "WORD" but they forget, whether or not it was inspired by the Big Guy in the Big Throne, it was written, re-written, interpretted and changed to fit Man's will.
They also want to believe that the Big Bearded Guy in a White Robe is enough like them that he can fit in their terms. He must have a 24 hour day, must look like us and so on. It is hard to wrap your mind around the thought that should Genesis be true (and not a copy of a Babylonian epic) God's day may be longer than ours in the way a day to a fly can be a life time.

Answer 7

While I agree with your premises, but you surely understand the difference between the two... the biblical refereces to creation speak of time when, in God's time, the universe, primordial sun, and subsequently, our "second-stage" sun... and Earth, itself, "took form," it was "in-formed," or directed, so to speak... the evolutive process was also "encouraged" along and not left up to "random chance." There interpretive "difficulties" in some of the modern day translations of the Bible are really problematic for those who cannot, in ANY given instance, see the Bible's verses as "figurative" rather than literal. I see the whole bible as "valid" and true... but not all passages can be [should be] taken literally.

Also, in atomic theory, as you say, the effects can be readily evidenced when applied. Unfortunately, the effects of the God - human relationship, i.e., grace, love, truth, etc., are put to other possible factors because many simply cannot suspend their disbelief long enough to "feel" their way through to the teleological evidence therein.
I hope this makes sense to you... you can trust there is a God... and one who cares about you... This God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent... omni-everything... that's just REALLY hard around which to wrap our sad little "pointed heads!" We, as a species, are just NOT that smart... an that's why faith is sometimes so difficult for some... and nearly impossible for others.

Answer 8

I don't question atomic theory because you can see the practical results of it in a working atomic reactor or a nuclear bomb.

I question evolution because it only makes partial sense. I can see how one species of animal could get larger or faster over time as a result of breeding. But it sounds impossible to believe that:

1. inanimate matter happened to arrange itself into the complex interworking subsystems contained in even the most simple one celled creature just waiting for a fortuitous charge of electricity that would somehow come along and not only cause motion but impart an ongoing life force like in a Franenstein movie.

2. that such a creature would also have among it's parts the ability to reproduce itself.

3. that somehow this process happened many times until an amoeba like creature became a multi-celled creature, that turned into a fish like creature that turned into a frog like creature that turned into a reptile and a rodent and a hummingbird and a bumblebee and a giraffe and an elephant and a human being.

4. The double helix DNA structure is a complex code that baffles scientists. In order for one species to become another species it would be like a computer programmer taking a 1980's Atari game program and totally reworking it into one of the modern 3D video games. To say that all of this information was imparted to the DNA code as a result of time + chance goes against logic and has no current counterpart of proof to demonstrate that it ever happens in the natural world.

Answer 9

It's because for some mysterious reason, the bible skipped Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity and the Uncertainty Principle as well as how to make a fuel which doesn't pollute and kill the planet or just a few hints on how to cure cancer or famine.

Hell, after building a world in 7 days, you got to cut the big guy some slack. It was good of him to leave a few things for poor misguided scientists to find out, with their obsession with facts and testing out their theories.

Answer 10

They dont understand science. They dont understand what a sceintific theory is, only the common usage. THey dont understand the meanings or concepts of hypothesis, experiment, data, or interpretation of data. Normally, this can be summed up using the word "ignorant". But, then they feel attacked. So as not to hurt their feelings, lets just say since its not in the bible, it must not be important.

--edit--
In fact, maybe their fundamental failure is in not realizing that its the job of science to constantly question things, to constantly gather more evidence, and to never be satisfied with what is written in a book. You can always know more, yet christians just stop at the bible. God wrote bible, its the truth, the end. The ultimate closing of the mind.

Answer 11

Because the ignorant, go to church and believe whatever Pastor Dave says, masses aren't inclined to find out the difference between what science considers a theory and a hypothesis. It's my theory that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Of course, it's just a theory until I actually see it happen tomorrow morning.

I think most evolutionary naysayers actually think it's a hypothesis. Those people should look at the link below.