Evolution is a theory and not fact? There is a major problem with this statement...what is it?

Question

10 Points to the first person who really gets the point.

Lots of good answers. I'm not sure which I should pick, but I think the first one got the point.

For the grammar correctors:
I'm surprised no one said it should be 'there' instead of 'their.' I caught that one a bit too late.

Also:
I did not leave out the 't' in 'what'--I can't help it if Yahoo truncated my sentence.
And I put a question mark after the statement because I am questioning the statement. Do you people have nothing better to do?

LOL nevermind the 'their/there' thing--I was thinking of a different question. Duh me :)

Answer 1

The problem is that evolutionary theory is an explanation of real observable data.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Answer 2

The DNA genetics of the ape, chimp, or other species does not align with the human DNA. In the early 50's through the 60's they thought they were the same. With DNA studies they have found it is fallible. Also during an excavation a skull was found with teeth that indicated that the evolutionary theory was wrong. It was older than the one they called Lucy. With all of the case studies they are no closer today than they was a while ago. All they know is every living creature has similar DNA, this includes flowers and trees. Only problem is the genetic traits do not match in the categories that are set forth. They ask the question how can this be? Quite simple in my opinion God created the heavens and the earth and the fullness thereof.

Answer 3

This statement confuses the scientific and common definitions of "theory."

Or, you might also point out that essentially all scientific ideas including gravity and electricity are also theories. The fact is that the planets stay in orbit and we don't fly off the earth; the theory that explains these facts is called gravity. And a theory is the top of the scientific food chain - it's about as good as it gets.

So unless you want to start believing that the devil is holding us to the ground and that Jesus makes your computer run, you'd better just deal with the fact that the theory of evolution is as well proven as anything in science.

Answer 4

Evolution has been accepted by scientists as an acceptable theory.
There is no genetic proof that evolution changes or mutates
species to be better.
Darwin's proposed theories are lacking in scientific evidence to support his claim. What he witnessed was a variation in species.
There is no explanation other than conclusions based on observation of the varied species.
Theories in evolution are opposed to facts. They are best guesses or opinions that try to explain a connection between animals and fossils.
There is no measured basis for evolution. Since it may happen over time we can only hypothesize since there is no scientific test that can be done to prove any mutation or genetic alterations.

Answer 5

first of all, evolution cannot be denied; whether or not one believes that is where all humans (or life in general) ORIGINALLY came from, its still a very real part of why we are what we are today. of course, this way, evolution and creation can both be believed. there is proof that early hominids, over thousands of years, have evolved and grown into what we are today through natural selection. that cannot be denied: look at skull and bone differences, the formation of civilization rather than constant migration, and general intelligence. the same goes for other animals. however, i believe that the theory of evolution, (pertaining to how life came to be,) or the presence of a god, will not be proven for a very long while, perhaps never. therefore, evolution in the creation/evolution debate is deemed a theory, since it can be changed if/when something better comes along.

Answer 6

Tricky but great question!!

The major problem is definition (I think):

Evolution is a fact based theory...It is a theory as there are others that are around that have the same conclusions and produce the same results (depending on the arguments)

Equifinality in all its' glory means that evolution remains a theory because the weight of the arguments against it are very strong but are ultimately faith rather than proof driven:

Evolution has been proven to be true but is still something that people actually believe in rather than proveably know...it is now a
religion in it's own rights (ironically enough)

I think I might not understand the question, please help...

Answer 7

Yes, evolution is a theory. So is gravity. So is electricity. So is the atomic theory. In science any explanation is called a theory and part of the scientific process is that any theory can be displaced if enough evidence accumulates to overturn it and if there's a concensus of the scientific community. Maybe facts will develop that strongly show that evolution is bogus and something else happened to produce species, if so that will be the dominant theory, but for now the best explanation of speciation is evolution.

Answer 8

There are 5 types of evolution, from how the universe started, how galaxies formed, how solar system formed, how life started and how one kind of animal or plant produced a new breed (such as breeding two different kind of horses and getting a new breed of horse).

The last example is called micro evolution. It is a scientific fact.

The first 4 types of evolution are theories, they are not scientifically proven.

Just because #5 is science does not mean that the other 4 are science also.

Answer 9

The problem is that evolution is a theory, a fact, and a lie all at the same time.

WOAH! That's a weird line...

Y'see, the micro-evolution that we observe constantly in nature is a fact. Breeding of dogs, horses, etc. All observable. fact.

The macro-evolution is a theory and a lie. What makes it a theory is that no single observable major leap in evolution has ever been observed. The theory is based on the proven fact of micro-evolution--the logical leap is that "If this happens on a small scale, why can't it happen on a big scale?" Nice theory. Let's explore it.

Oh, darn it... no one's ever seen anything like that on that scale. Oh, darn it, evolution of complex organisms would have to happen all at once.
Oh, darn it, giant leaps in variations always hurt the species and die out
Oh, darn it, that one "missing link" turned out to be a hoax
Oh, darn it, that one "embryo similarities" picture turned out to be a hoax
Oh, darn it, that whole "Nebraska man" thing turned out to be a mistake.

"... let's keep telling the lies anyway, we already got our government funding..."

Answer 10

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past eventsWe all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Answer 11

Evolution is a scientific theory. In common speech, a theory means a hunch or a guess. In science, a hunch or guess is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory after it is supported by observation, facts, and general support of the scientific community. The Theory of Evolution is as much a fact of our existence as the Theory of Gravity.