Why won't the Theory of evolution ever become a scientific Law?

Question

This is for those opponents of evolution who always like to point out that evolution is just a "theory". I always chuckle then try to explain to them why, but to no avail. So I present this easy post to clear it up.

Scientific Definition of a Law

"An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule "

Definition of a Theory

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation "

Too complicated for you still? Let me make it even easier.

Scientific Law- Describes what nature does under certain conditions

Scientific Theory- Explains how nature works

A law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. Laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science

Hope this clears it up a bit.

AwesomeBill, Evolution will never be a law, because it is always progressing. We are constantly discovering more and more evidence. Being a theory doesn't mean that evolution as a whole is up for debate. However there are still certain things in the theory itself that we are still discovering.

Answer 1

There is also a theory to explain gravity, because the EXACT mecanism is not fully known.

Any creationists who think that just because it is a theory means GRAVITY doesn't exist are welcome to jump off a building to prove it.

HOPE THIS CLEARS THINGS UP

Answer 2

I prefer to use the term "established" to mean what you mean by a "scientific law". In either case, the meaning is that workers in the field routinely use the theory to obtain useful (i.e., correct) predictions. In this sense, evolution is as well established as special relativity: scientifically, it's a done deal.
A scientific theory may properly be defined as a refutable universal statement about the way the world works. Universal statements in the real world (as opposed to in mathematics) may be refutable, but are always unproveable. In this definition, the word "refutable" is key, because it can be proved that the usefulness (i.e., predictive power) of any theory derives exclusively from its refutability. It follows immediately as a corollary that an irrefutable theory is worthless: it can predict nothing. Since such alternatives to evolution as "intelligent design" are in principle irrefutable, they are not scientific theories and have no predictive power whatever: even if true (which is possible), they are useless.

Answer 3

I challenge you to provide a single piece of scientific evidence to support evolution. The scientific method is an objective system by which a hypothesis, if supported by scientific evidence, becomes a theory and if that evidence is universal across situations, becomes a law. Evolution is quite the opposite. Every single attempt to provide evidence results in failure. For example, the hypothesis of evolution predicts that we would see intermediate forms in the fossil record. That such forms would be common as dirt. However, despite over 100 years of careful collection and study, NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN FOUND. Interesting. Well, how about other fields of biology? Let's take microbiology. Since microorganisms are so simple and they multiply rapidly, I should be able to demonstrate one bacteria becoming a different type of bacteria by allowing it to go through a few million generations of replication. Hmmmm.....it does not happen, EVER. Interesting. Well, certainly if we take a closer look, on the genetic level perhaps, we can find evidence of one species becoming another by slow change of its genome. As one species becomes another, its genome must change to reflect that, a little bit at a time. There must be cats that look more like dogs on the genetic level etc (or how about humans with DNA that is just a little bit closer to monkeys). What? You say that doesn't happen.....EVER. Well, gosh.....at least evolution must be obervable in the basic process by which life began. Everyone knows that life began from unliving organic matter in the primordial ooze. No wait a minute. One of the core principles of biology is biogenesis....the observation that life ONLY comes from other life and NEVER from non-life....NO EXCEPTIONS.

Scientific Definition of a Law

"An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule "

Not only does evolution not meet the repeated successful testing rule, it is quite a bit worse than that. It NEVER succeeds at testing. EVER. Across all fields of biology, not a single successful scientific observation in support of evolution and all observations predicted by this hypothestis fail and miserably so.

Definition of a Theory

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation "

Evolution does not even raise to the level of a theory. There is no body (let alone a substantial body) of scientific (ie following the objective principles of scientific control, study and testing) evidence that is explained by evolution. Quite the contrary, there is massive evidence that refutes it.

Evolution is neither law nor theory. It is a hypothesis and a bad one at that. It made logical sense when it was created but has failed massive scientific inquiry into the matter.

Now, don't get me wrong. It is highly likely there is a scientific basis for the origin of species. However, evolution is not it.

You may disagree. But to that I say, provide the evidence. Such a display will likely win you a nobel peace prize and immortalize your name in science forever and ever.

Put up or shut up.

Answer 4

Ah, the whole "it's a theory" canard. Theory doesn't mean "unproven fact" when discussing scientific methods but rather, it means "the method of how the law behaves".

You should apply your "it's a theory" canard to other ideologies. Try applying it to atomic theory. Hit your fist against a brick wall as hard as you can and see if you can disprove atomic theory.

Chances are, the atomic repulsion from the wall will repulse your fist with such a force that you get broken bones, breaking the atomic force that keeps your bones together.

Answer 5

I am by no means religious. Your simplification is incorrect. Scientific law as you stated requires "repeated successful testing" Sense evolution takes place over millions of years there is no time to test it even once much less repeatedly. It might be possible to prove that a plant or house fly has a better chance of survival due to some random mutation but this is only one part of the whole of Darwin's theory. There is recent evidence on a molecular level to support intelligent design. A flagellum motor is a very complex apparatus to propel bacterium by means of a spinning tail. Any one part of this motor by its self to be produced by a random mutation would not increase the chance of survival or serve any purpose. This device, there for could not have evolved by random mutations and natural selection. Google intelligent design and see for your self. Hope this isn't too complicated for you.

Answer 6

Evolution and the science of it, no matter what site you point to, is nothing more than man's INTERPRETATION of certain events and what they percieve to be true. When they can find several people that agree with their interpretation, they present it as fact, even though it is not ABSOLUTE fact. Then the sheeple follow them repeating what they have heard, and what humans "think" is true and they say it is fact. They have their facts, theories, and man-made beliefs. The objects they study get studied by fellow "scientists" and there may be 7 different interpretations, so they sit together and decide as a whole as to what will be considered "facts" presented to the multitudes of their sheeple to be true. Look at all the dating methods, and each one suppossedly better than the other, yet they all cannot point to the same date on an object. That info is suppressed in favor of a consensus presented as fact to their sheeple and taught in classes as fact. The funny thing is, the "holy grail" of evolution, berkley, states on their site, "These are our understandings on how we believe things have come in to being." Their UNDERSTANDING. Not the facts, but their understanding! If it is solely their understanding, it is NOT absolute truth. Evolution proves only that non-believers who choose this path of thinking are easily brainwashed.
http://planttel.net/~meharris1/mikescorn...

Answer 7

In Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", he describes in great detail (Chapters 6,7, and 10) the difficulties in the theory of descent with modification.
He states how there are many variables, and how he is unable to predict an exact outcome to any species modification, thus making his theories--speculative.
Perhaps if he were more aggressive in his findings, more people would have been willing to accept his theories.
Also you are correct in your law vs. theory explanation.
The law of gravity describes what happens when an object is dropped, whereas the theory of gravity would explain how the moon causes the gravitational pull on earth..

Answer 8

Just so you know, the Steady State Theory was a proper theory, even though it was abandoned by its creator when he realized the impossibility of it.

Anyways, the reason it is not recognized as a law is that it has not been proved and can only be disproven, as Intelligent Design scientists do everyday.

Answer 9

Your question is contradictive of your additional details. Theories are theories, laws are laws. While I whole-heartedly agree with evolution, to think of it as worthy of being a law is just like adhering to the concept of creationism.

Answer 10

AMEN to you sir. Have you seen the question's on this page suggesting that evolution is a silly theory. The only reason it isn't law is because of the people who refuse to teach it in the public school's. People refuse to acknowledge this "theory" because it contradicts the age old story of Adam and Eve. I feel so bad for those people. They believe stories that resemble fairy tales told by people who lived a thousand of years ago, but refuse to see scientific fact. All hail SCIENCE!

Answer 11

It is so upsetting to me that hundreds of kids are being brought up and not being taught evolution. I am glad that I was exposed to both the bible and evolution. No one forced me to believe anything, I chose by myself. I chose what was supported by scientific fact. But no matter how much proof we give, no matter how many times we disprove their theories, no one will ever back down. They don't even consider the possibility. And that is saddening.