Should someone reject the theory of evolution, gravitation, or relativity because they are theories?

Question

"The TTHHHHEORY of evolution is only a THEEEORY!"

How many times have you heard the ignorant say this? The error these scared people utter is one of equivocation, among other things. They confuse the common usage of the word "theory" with the scientific usage.

For example, the common usage might be something like "(after gossip about Sue) Well Jane, thats one theory about why Sue is sucha byyatch"

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Answer 1

I clicked on your question because I wanted to clarify somethings about the scientific word theory, but you took the words right out of my mouth.

I read an article on the Internet (I think it was at CNN.com) about this very issue. Scientists haven't used the word Law to describe new theories since Einstein. The reason is that Einstein's Theory of Relativity upset Newton's Second Law of Motion (the Law of Velocity). Newton's Second Law needed to be augmented with a new formula, E=MC2. At normal speeds the relativistic effects of E=MC2 is so small that it is almost impossible to detect, even with modern technology, which is why Newton's formula seemed to be correct. But, as objects approach the speed of light relativity becomes more apparent.

In other words, Newton's second law seems to be correct, but Einstein found out that it was incomplete. Since the term Law implies a complete understanding, scientists have instead used the term theory, knowing that future generations may discover exceptions and expansions to even their best theories.

To sum up, many theories, such as Evolution, are probably incomplete, but they are still valid. Evolution has been tested and it has been founded to be very accurate. The chances that evolution doesn't exist is VERY, VERY SMALL.

Answer 2

At a glance, arithmetic does look like a visit into the absurd. I first discovered approximately genuine numbers, then rational, irrational, imaginary...etc... it would look that by utilising the time you get to Heisenwinies uncertain approximately something concept, which you fairly ought to have an rather stable delusion existence to earnings it. however the variety 'a million', is the main suitable variety. i comprehend this, because of the fact; a million^3=a million.

Answer 3

You really just answered your own question. Usage of the word "theory" in scientific circles is very different than that among laypersons. That it has thus been misunderstood or even misused speaks nothing for or against the theories mentioned.

Answer 4

Yeah I don't believe that gravity thing. I can go for evolution, but I think angels and demons knock us around. Otherwise, how would the moon know how fast to go through the sky? To good to be done without a clock.

I haven't seen anything showing that they have not seen angels pushing the moon and stuff so I can go for it.

Answer 5

What you are saying is not true. You said that theory and fact do not necessarily stand in opposition, but being a theory doesn't make that theory fact. In fact, the only thing a theory is is a prediction that explains occurences in the world. It doesn't make it true.

Answer 6

Gravity appears to work quite well and reliably at the local level. Ignore it at your own peril. It works so well that at one time it was called "the law of universal gravitation" or something like that.

Then someone noticed that galaxies seem to hold together better than the observable mass should indicate, and thus the fudge factor of "Exotic Dark Matter" was born, and folks stopped calling gravitation "the universal law of."

Live and learn.

Answer 7

We know there is gravity because we see it in action, does man understand it all? No, we can reject man's theories on it. There are some levels of evolution but it is man's theory that we evolved from apes since there is nothing to see to support it. We can reject that theory but not reject that things do change.

Answer 8

In science, a successful 'theory' (such as gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism) occupies a higher stratum of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts.

Answer 9

Do you see evidence of gravity? Perhaps you don't know why it works, but things fall down. Always.

Do you see evidence of relativity? Just taking one aspect of it, did the bomb go off? Yes, and again, always.

Pick any member or any species. Watch it. Do you see any change to a new species? "Everything started from a single cell." And where did the single cell come from? That subject has too many dead ends and missing links to be taken seriously, and can't be reproduced.

Answer 10

Don't you love how every time you mention EVOLUTION someone has to talk about them once being an ape. Or, their dog being a crab. WTF?!

Guess us evolutionists have some things to learn, huh.