Who can Help.... Why do they call it the 'Theory' of Evolution and not the 'Law' of evolution .. . . .

Question

like the 'Laws of Physics' and the 'Law of Gravity' ??

This really puzzles me....... Does this mean that 'evolution' is really only a 'theory' and if/when it is proven, then it will become the 'law of evolution' .

Answer 1

"Law" is sort of an antiquated term--most scientists (at least the ones at my university) use the term "theory" exclusively. Gravity is a theory in the same exact capacity that evolution is.
_______________________________________
"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. "

"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. "

Answer 2

The Scientific Method is based on skepticism. It takes nothing for granted. Every premise must be justified, every hypothesis tested. With enough evidence in favor and no credible evidence against, a hypothesis may regarded as a theory. "Theory" does NOT mean "guess", as it does in lay culture. A theory is a level of understanding that applies in every situation as the science is currently understood.

Scientific "Laws" are virtually unassailable theories on which other theories depend. Scientists trust in the reliability of laws and theories, but they don't subscribe to absolute proofs. Too many scientific breakthroughs have convinced them that any knowledge is imperfect. However, even a discredited theory "works" in most cases. (Einstein rearranged our understanding of gravity, but Newtonian physics is good for most orbital calculations.) A theory is effectively the last word until a better explanation comes along. If some incontrovertible proof of species change were to come to light, they might consider making Evolution a "Law", but there will be a lot of arguing up till then.

Answer 3

A hypothesis that cannot be proven is often elevated to the status of "theory" errantly.

Anyone who claims that evolution is "proven" is NOT a scientist. Such a person is an amateur or wannabe.

There is a "black box" that always stands between a theory and a fact. The "scientific method" is the use of controlled experimentation to eliminate all unknowns in the determination of fact.

When the black box between a theory and the fact cannot be opened, the theory cannot be considered fact.

There exists no method for calibrating the mechanisms needed to establish evolution as a fact. Therefore, it remains a theory.

More evidence exists against evolution than for it. There is NO evidence that one kind of animal ever becomes another kind of animal. There are variations WITHIN a kind of animal, but it never becomes another kind of animal.

Variation WITHIN a kind of animal is a quality control mechanism, not a mechanism of change. Survival of the fittest makes good dogs and good elephants, it doesn't make dogephants or eledogs.

No matter how vociferous evolutionists are in proclaiming their religion a fact, it remains a [quite poor] theory.
.

Answer 4

When you talk about "evolution" I have to start with "what do you mean" because the term is so very broad...

Let's take the hot issue of "evolution of species" or "all life comes from one common ancestor"

This is totally conjecture (scientific word for "guess"). It has never been observed, no records have shown it happening, never created in a laboratory. It's just a guess.

Oh, there will be people who call me a liar for this, because they say that this one species gave birth to a whole new species... and they would be right about the second part--but not the first.

Y'see, if a "rat" gives birth to a "rat" then that does not prove that a line of "rats" could eventualy give birth to a "cat" ...

Evolution from "Amoeba to me" is a theory. While there are many "intermediary" facts that can support it, there are others that do not.

Hence, a theory.

Answer 5

You misunderstand. There is a certainly a "theory of gravity." And in fact, that theory still has not been totally reconciled with other aspects of physical theory, e.g., quantum field theory. Yes, we "know" there is gravity, but how it really works and what it really is are subject to development and change.

Put another way, in science, theories organize observations (or "facts") around "laws." And the theories can change as new observations (facts) call into question the "laws" that organized them. That continuous change is the very essence of the scientific method. Science, unlike dogma, WELCOMES contradiction.

Science isn't like baking a cake - where you get the ingredients together, bake, and voila! you have a cake (or "law"). That's how dogma works. All science has are theories - of relativity, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. Scientists are fine with that. They work at getting closer and closer approximations of an understanding of reality.

Answer 6

Evolution remains a theory because of the application of the scientific method. You begin with a hypothesis: everything evolved. Then you test the hypothesis. That's where it hits a snag. Since evolution is so far based only on archeological evidence and not testable in a lab, it is unable to be officially confirmed as a Law. You can demonstrate gravity in a lab (try dropping a feather then a bowling ball on someone's foot). The evidence for evolution is still purely circumstancial (in this layer is a fossilized bird, in this layer is a fossilized reptile with wings, the bird must have evolved from the reptile). Until we can create a new species in a lab or witness it live in the world, according to the scientific method, evolution must remain a theory.

Answer 7

A Scientific Theory is defined as a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A law is a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are observed.

They are two different types of things. A theory does not become a law or vice versa. Nor does being a theory imply that we are in any way unsure about it. For instance the "Theory of Human Sexual Reproduction" says that human babies are the result of sexual intercourse. The fact it is a theory does not mean that we do not know where babies come from.

What makes evolution not a law is that it is not a relationship between two phenomena. It has nothing to do with it's certainty.
Evolution is one of the most certain theories in all of science.

Many people ( including most of your respondents ) simply have no idea about the meanings of scientific terms. It is no wonder ignorance is so rampant when people are so completely uneducated.

Answer 8

What the hell is the Law of Physics? And for that matter, the Law of Gravity? If you have proven what gravity is, you might want to tell someone, since no scientists has been able to do that.

The theory of evolution is the mechanism that causes the changes that have been observed, recorded, theorized, etc.

Answer 9

Gravity is still a theory too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_theory_of_gravity
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html
http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html

Most every "Law of Physics" is too. There is always a small dispute over one aspect or the other. Don't let the fact that science calls things theories throw you too much. When there is no serious discussion about the overall idea (like evolution) it is just accepted as a fact. Science really never calls much of anything a law.

Answer 10

No. Science does not deal in 'laws' any longer.

Understand that the men who came up with the laws believed that they were proving fundamental principles. Newton's Law of Gravity ... turned out to be false. Wasn't much of a Law then, was it. Newton's THEORY of Gravity, then. Which was replaced with Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which virtually no one denies is a fact, so why isn't it a law, if you're right?), and we know for a fact that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is in error in that it cannot be reconciled with quantum gravity (that's why).

Science no longer deals in laws because scientists understand that we prove nothing... we disprove things that are wrong, under the maxim that whatever's left must be true.


-------------------

For example, I hold in my hand a black velvet bag that you cannot see through. I tell you it contains marbles, and I ask you to guess what color they are. You have no idea, you've seen none of the marbles, so you randomly guess, "They're all red." This is a guess, not even a hypothesis -- you have done no research short of being told there were marbles.

I allow you to reach in and pull one, and only one, out of the bag. I make sure you do not see any of the other marbles while you do so. When you look at it, it is red. I take the marble and put it back in the bag. You have a small bit of information that says 'red' is a decent guess, so now you can call it a hypothesis. But this doesn't prove all of them are red.

I allow you to continue pulling out one marble and then put it back in the bag. Your hand tells you while its in the bag that there are about a hundred marbles. After 100 pulls, you've never seen a marble any color but red. You might have drawn a marble twice, so you still can't say with 100% certainty that all of them are red. You draw 10,000 times, and they're all red.

This would be pretty convincing. You could now say, "The odds are so against a non-red marble that I consider it a fact that all are red." But you don't know it, you haven't proven it... in fact, to prove it, you'd have to see every single marble all at once -- and the bag (and the universe) won't let you see it all at once.

On your 10,001 draw ... you get a blue marble. Now, were you wrong to state that you considered it a fact all were red? No... that IS what in fact you considered, because the evidence overwhelmingly supported that conclusion. However, with this new information, you know that your initial theory is wrong. So you may adjust, maybe, "There are many red marbles and a few blue marbles." You could test this by continuing to draw until you got a non-red/non-blue marble, which would disprove your updated theory -- so your theory is falsifiable.

After a million draws, you notice a disturbing fact -- even though there are only 100 marbles in the bag, the statistics are telling you only one in 10,000 marbles are blue. This means something much more complicated is going on. So you'd have to come up with a new hypothesis and a new way to test, and if the experiments supoprted that, you'd have a new theory that explains ALL your past experiences PLUS the new ones.

But you could never PROVE the status of all the marbles without seeing all of them. So you would never have a Law... only a cycle of hypothesis, test, theory...

Answer 11

Gravity is technically a theory. A scientific "theory" is not the same as a "theory" of another type. By definition, a scientific theory may incorporate a scientific "law".

"A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis." - www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm