Is the theory of evolution based on fact or observation?

Question

So many people put so much faith in the Theory of Evolution. I'm just wondering if people really think it's based on fact or not. Christians are accused so much of "blindly following" what their pastors tell them the people making the accusations never stop to wonder if they are being decieved. Observation is biased on the soul fact that there is an observer. I understand there is a system of checks, but no more than there are in the spiritual community. I think it is inherently dangerous to simply accept what you were taught in school as absolute truth. Evolutionist, try thinking for yourselves. Yes science has done some amazing things. Physics for instance has improved the lives of many. But physics is something we can observe right here and now. When studying life origins you will have to make assumptions and to estimate. It's in the genes.

Answer 1

Evolution is a theory that has been confirmed by the facts gathered from observation.

We talk about evolution as a "theory" because that's how it started, but it is really a fact, now, over a century later. It's a theory confirmed over and over and over by very hard evidence indeed. The "system of checks" is incomparably vaster and more sure than the hokey "certainties" of the spiritual community.

If ANY laboratory technician ANYWHERE in the world takes a sample of germs and slowly exposes these germs to higher and higher concentrations of poison, the subsequent populations of germs will have higher resistance to the poison.

Now, that's evolution. It has nothing to do with where the lab is or what the religion of the laboratory tecnician is. Resistance to poisons is a fact in following generations of germs and it is an example of evolution. So are other related forms of evolution such as resistance to penicillin.

Religion can't be tested in the lab and has everything to do with the attitude and preconceptions and superstitiousness of each "technician." Religion has never knocked a single deadly disease from the face of the earth, not in tens of thousands of years of deafening prayers for relief.

But scientists have wiped out smallpox and are going after other deadly pathanogens now. They are the real humanitarians.

You can have your faith and your religion. Just stay out of the way while the real wizards make the world better for you, whether you diss them or not.

Answer 2

I agree with on some things. Others not. On the Scientific Method: religion does not have a "system of checks" like this. Religion is based on faith. Science on facts. The Scientific Method is the most logical system the human species has to check facts and make sure that what the observer sees is accurate, or true.

Alot of the Christian community degrades the scientific community for holding so much stock in the THEORY of Evolution. Listen up, folks! Hold on to your seats! GRAVITY IS A THEORY! It takes alot of work for an idea to become a Scientific Law, there are actually very few Laws in the universe. But, nobody seems to have a problem with believing in the Theory of Gravity. Why is the Theory of Evolution such a problem?

One of the main problems is that the scientific community has failed to state their case to the public. I know of only two or three people that actually REALLY have any idea of how evolution REALLY works. Until it can be brought to a public forum and explained accordingly, people are going to have a problem with it because nobody likes the idea of "coming from apes". Thank God I had a professor in college who was an evolutionist AND a Christian, and was able to explain how they actually both coincide with one another very well.

Answer 3

It is based on observances and random acts of mutation in DNA. Maybe, possibly, could have.
The theories abound and clearly if there was a direct link the Pulitzer prize would have been awarded.
People look into it and believe what is put in front of them with no comprehension of what they are reading.
I have been in physics for 25 years and good scientific evidence must be prepared and proven. That has not been done. Oh yes they will give you all the information for the theory, but yet no one has ever been able to get the line "straight" so to speak.
The last person I was chatting with, said evolution was random acts of mutation on a regular basis. Sounds like more intelligent design than random.
The biggest conjecture comes from the ones who cut and paste material they have no idea about.
There is so much to cover for the evidence of evolution, one person cannot possibly comprehend the structure.
Science can make it very confusing.
Science is a well paced observation of experiments that can be documented and copied.
So far the common ancestor has not been found or DNA specifics have not been acquired.

Answer 4

It is based on estimates made from observation. We didn't see one animal morph into another (unless you count moths and butterflies, but when they reproduce it isn't immediately moths and butterflies). We didn't observe the full details of what laid those fossilized bones and impressions over the geologic ages. But what has happened is like forming then filling an algebraic equation: A + B + D = E(volution) and some would add C(reation). We don't know one way or the other, but we spread out the observations and apply some logical reasoning and try to describe a pattern. Evolution or Creation, both are a work of faith, but with evolution we've got all these physical rocks and bones to look at again and again. With the Creation account, we have a written representation, the direct witnesses are not here to cross examine. I stay conversant in evolution but hope the Creation story wins in the end because I like the prospects of what comes next better.

Answer 5

It is based on both scientific facts and oberservations.

You say there are as many checks on spiritual community and I have to say I find that to be flat out wrong. There are no checks at all in any way on a spiritual community..your leader says so and you must accept or you are a heretic...that is way it works.

Also your whole argument is horribly flawed....evolution is called the theory right? just like your question puts it down as right? Not the LAW of evolution right? That indicates to anyone familiar with scientific classification that it is NOT A LAW AND NOT 100% ACCURATE..but since anti-evolutionists seem to hate and mangle the language that muddy water with twisted words that make it hard to understand the issue. WHEN DISCUSSING SCIENTIFIC STUFF YOU NEED TO USE SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY NOT STREET TALK...SHEESH!

Anything else I need to point out? FYI don't wipe your bum with a sharpened steel rake!

Schools teach the theory of evolution because while not perfect it is the best SCIENTIFIC theory (which is why we don't teach evolution in spanish, english or home economics classes) we have right now..but SCIENCE ITSELF is all about questioning everything to get to the truth...evolution has never ever been declared by science as an absolute truth and the only people who say so are anti-evolutionists.

Maybe you need to quesiton your own beliefs and actually check your facts since one other mistake...evolution is about life changing...not the origin of life.

People should not be upset about the teaching of evolution since it seems 98% of the population doesn't listen, has no clue what it is really about, or what science is.

Answer 6

Both.

By the way, why should I presume to be capable of "thinking for myself" on the subject when I know so much less than an educated expert who has researched and studied and tested? Why should I trust my mind to give me the answers when obviously my mind isn't nearly as qualified as someone who is an authority on the subject? This applies to science, by the way; to proofs and experimentation and evidence. I'm not talking about trusting the "authority" of someone who would be making just as many assumptions as me (i.e. a priest or religious leader).

Evolution isn't just a wild guess, a flight of fancy. It's a scientific theory.

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Answer 7

Genetics, Anthropology, Geology, Statistics, and other forms of science all come together to to form the "theory" of evolution. I don't like the term "theory". Scientifically speaking, the term evolution is fact. We have a new flu vaccine every year because the influenza virus evolves every year. The "theory" is where humans come from. All the science indicates that we share a common ancestor to monkey (were not from monkeys).

If you really, truly educate yourself on the subject, you will end up accepting evolution. Of the scientists who are in the fields listed above, .14% don't believe in evolution.

If you are interested, I would suggest taking a Physical Anthropology class from a local college.

Answer 8

This is what happens when people try to sell there beliefs as fact. this is also what happens when a person tries to claim his observations are accurate and totally factual.
No one who follows faith as the truth can prove any of there beliefs as facts. Because no where are there any physical evidence of any thing. Simply stating you must have faith is showing incompetence.
There are only 6 skulls of neanderthal ever found, An there partial. Every observation made by humans is speculation and conjecture.

We just don't know anything for sure over 600 years to maybe at best 1000.

Answer 9

Its based on observable facts.
There is a big difference between what the scientific community does and what the religious community does.
Scientist can observe the mechanisms of evolution, measure the time it takes and accurately model the transitions that have taken place over time.
These observations and data are peer reviewed and available to anyone to test and prove false. In fact that is what the scientific method is all about.

Answer 10

Physics is something we can observe here and now, and so is evolution. For example, in a bio lab at university we bred generations of fruit flies. We bred for certain mutations and kept the different populations physically separated (limited gene flow). As the generations progressed, we witnessed the genetic divergence between the two populations. It's really not that complicated and you can see it with your own eyes (and a microscope).