I keep seeing people saying "The theory of evolution? Ahh but it's just a theory." Do they not know what a theory is in science? Here's a quick definition:
"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."
Armed with this information, are you going to continue to say "it's only a theory"?
2006-10-24 23:33:03 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
First 2 answers make no sense.
2006-10-24 23:35:56 · update #1
Make that first 3.
2006-10-24 23:36:25 · update #2
Preacher did you even read the definition?
2006-10-24 23:39:07 · update #3
curious - read the description I provided, you can't just make up presumptions based on your own opinion.
2006-10-24 23:48:20 · update #4
Parrot: too right it's frustrating. It's like talking to a brick wall. And then the brick wall expecting you to listen to it.
2006-10-25 00:19:12 · update #5
Doc8: What are you talking about? I didn't make this up, this is the definition of a scientific theory you noblet!
2006-10-25 00:20:39 · update #6
how many of these theories would the people that hold them say were in scientific usage?
2006-10-24 23:34:30 · answer #1 · answered by Jenyfer C 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
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. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory .
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. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
2006-10-25 06:35:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow! Finally someone other than me pointed this out!! Made me wonder if anyone was awake in high school science class! If it were merely a hypothesis, that would be another story. But a scientific theory is well on it's way to becoming fact.
Besides, why does everyone not understand that God could well have set evolution in motion? It does not necessarily disprove the existence of God.
FYI: Darwin was a Christian, and saw evolution as a great insight into God's creation. This creationism vs. evolution thing makes no sense to me.
2006-10-25 06:39:25 · answer #3 · answered by kristalshyt 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A theory is supported by evidence, yes, but is not proven. Some theories seem to be very reasonable, and there is a LOT of evidence supporting them, but they still are not proven - not considered "fact" scientifically.
Although I personally believe in evolution, it is a theory - albeit a widely accepted one. Same goes for the Big Bang theory. Einstein's theory of relativity...all accepted as "most likely" the truth; but not proven.
Probably people shouldn't say evolution is "just" at theory, but it is, in fact, still open for argument, and there are opposing theories that are also based on logic and observation.
2006-10-25 06:39:57 · answer #4 · answered by bks33691 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What you're talking about is a lot like the famous creationist argument, "If human beings evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" You can explain it and explain it and explain it, but creationists will always use that argument to support their claims. The same is true for "Evolution is just a theory!" You're right, scientific theories are totally different from "theories" in everyday usage, but they just don't want to hear it. Frustrating, isn't it?
2006-10-25 06:54:35 · answer #5 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They change the definition of words to suit their view. Look at the words Occult (which means hidden/mystery), Cult (basic definition is the same as religion), Pagan (which meant country dweller/hick), the word Good... They call God Good, yet if anyone did even 1/4 of what he did in the Old Test they would be labelled Evil.
And yes, they will continue to say "it's only a theory".... even when you bring up Gravity. lol It's their way of rationalizing something they can't fit into their personal religion. And instead of changing their personal view to grow with new information, they force themselves to remain stagnant and then blame everything else as to why it's so "wrong".
2006-10-25 08:17:57 · answer #6 · answered by riverstorm13 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What is the experimental evidence, then, for the theory of evolution? It is called a theory because it has not been *proven* to be fact. I haven't done my homework on this issue so please bear with me. But it seems to me that the theory of evolution has not been proven. Do you know of a study (no sarcasm on my part) where something has evolved without ANY KIND of manipulation? If so, can you or someone else answering this question point me to the information?
Peace.
2006-10-25 06:51:43 · answer #7 · answered by superfluity 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Look at scientific theory throughout time. What makes today's scientific theories correct? Won't most of these theories be proven wrong at some point?
There is a difference between Scientific FACT and Scientific THEORY. A scientific theory is not infallable, where a scientific fact is infallable.
Scientific theory is just that. A THEORY. It can not be proven absolutely correct, so then it is just a theory.
2006-10-25 06:47:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The reason why it is called the "theory" of evolution is because although there are evidences that seem to point towards it, there is still no way you can reproduce or show evolution directly. This is in contrast to "laws" such as Boyle's Law or The Law of gravity where you are directly reproduce the effects to confirm such laws exist. Therefore, the word "theory" is right because it seemly cannot be proven before our eyes.
2006-10-25 06:42:56 · answer #9 · answered by curious 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course it would still be a theory Mlaheji. It is not fact until it is proven, with absolutely no doubt to be true. Unlike religious 'knowledge'or 'fact'
2006-10-25 06:39:09 · answer #10 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋