Can we just change it to "Law of Evoluton" already?

Question

I'm sick of hearing th stupid it's just a theory argument. This would settle it once and for all.

hey there iberius, you actually proved my point though you thought you were being so clever..

from dictionary.com

"the‧o‧ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

so in terms of order of importance, Theory is HIGHER than Law in scientific terms. My point is that since people like you don't understand the difference, we should just change it to Law so that the title more closely matches the spoken English definition.

Unless any of you have access to a time machine I don't think it is possible to prove evolution anymore than it has already been proven. Non evolutionists just don't want to listen.

one thing is for sure, there is no correlation between understanding of evolution and understanding of sarcasm.

Answer 1

No. When you have to change names to quiet a few vocal critics, they say "you blinked", and keep spouting babel with new garbage. Frankly, "Theory" is stronger than "Law" is many ways. Newton' Laws, the Laws of thermodynamics, and so on are well proven principles with no mechanisms defined. The Law of definite proportions was explained by atomic theory. Many of the mechanisms of evolution have been determined.

Answer 2

It's not going to be changed because a law and a theory are different things. There are lots of definitions that can be used, but basically a law says what nature does under certain conditions and a theory explains how nature works.
A law is usually described using math and a theory usually does not use math. This is why you find most laws in chemistry or physics, and biology has mostly theories. Think about it.....it's easy to describe the law of gravity or laws of motion with math but how would you do that with the theory of evolution?
Also, it's wrong to think that a law is more important than a theory or vice versa. One is not better than the other - there are just different. It's more important to remember that both can be proven wrong if enough evidence is found to suggest so.

Answer 3

i'm sorry to say this randy_savage_, but i really do agree to them.. it's true that a theory isn't really accepted as fact already.. though many people think it's true, it's not.. a theory isn't proven yet.. it's just an explanation or summary of an experiment. that's why part of the scientific method is formulating a theory..
here's my proof:
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's somehow accepted in science but not in true generally..
another thing, you've got it wrong there, a law is much higher than a theory bcoz a law is already accepted as a scientific fact.

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

about charles' theory, it really isn't gonna be a law mainly bcoz it isn't true.. my uncle who's a scientist told me that it was an amazing work by charles darwin that was just adapted bcoz of unknown ancestry of the people.. he said that since there is no law about our ancestry, scientists just accept them... but in general, it's not true.

Answer 4

Science has set standards for what is theory and what is law. Unfortunately religion does not need any evidence, all it needs is people who believe it. Science should keep its standards. Peoples "interpretation" of the bible changes frequently over time. Religions would be considered hypothesizes, and not even theories under the scientific method as the don't have enough evidence. Don't let people's ignorance to the scientific method bother you, consider the sources, and be glad you are a free thinker.

Answer 5

Evolutionary Theory is one of the most tested scientific theories ever. They can't call it a law though, because science is always adding new evidence to support and modify it.

Answer 6

To be fair, it hasn't been proven - there are huge holes. However, despite that, I still believe that it did happen!! I just accept that it hasn't been proven, but the evidence suggests it to be true.

I've completed a biology degree, and I've not heard of biological laws (not in this sort of context). 'Laws' in science tend to be provable with maths - laws of motion, laws of gravity, laws of themodynamics etc etc. That sort of mathematical proof cannot (yet) be applied to evolution, and so to call it a law would be faulty.

Answer 7

Scientific proof is not a matter of concensus. It is a matter of demonstrability.

Answer 8

Still not proven...just a lot of excellent evidence

Answer 9

What makes you so sure it's NOT a theory?