Fact or Theory? For Evolutionist?

Question

the·o·ry –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.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or
fact –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true-- So heres a fact
Truth is Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Here is the rest of the definition of theory hope you notice # 7

Answer 1

Both fact and theory. At least you had the intelligence to actually list some definitions of the word.

A SCIENTIFIC theory is number 1. "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

Scientists do not call something a "theory" unless it is firmly established as being factual and explains a phenomenon well.

Take the Theory of Relativity for example. I know of no physicist who doubts its truthfulness. It has passed every test given. Yet it is still called the THEORY of Relativity, not the LAW of Relativity.

My chemistry textbook says the following about theories in the section about the scientific method:

"Once a set of hypotheses that agrees with the various observations is obtained, the hypotheses are assembled into a theory. A theory, which is often called a model, is a set of tested hypotheses that gives an overall explanation of som natural phenomenon.

It is very important to distinguish between observations and theories. An observation is something that is witnessed and can be recorded. A theory is an interpretation - a possible explanation of why nature behaves in a particular way. Theories inevitably change as more information becomes available. For example, the motions of the sun and stars have remained virtually the same over the thousands of years during which humans have been observing them, but our explanations - our theories - for these motions have changed greatly since ancient times...

The point is that scientists do not stop asking questions just because a given theory seems to account satisfactorily for some aspect of natural behavior."

That last paragraph demonstrates the difference the creationist and the real scientist. The creationist starts with an assumption, God created everything in six days, and makes sure that any research he may do comes to the same conclusion. A real scientist continually examines the facts and if a theory needs to be changed or replaced, he is not afraid to do so.

As for the difference between a theory and a natural law, again I look at my chemistry textbook.

"Note the difference between a natural law and a theory. A natural law is a summary of observed (measurable) behavior, whereas a theory is an explanation of behavior. A law summarizes what happens; a theory (model) is an attempt to explain why it happens."

Answer 2

From Stephen Jay Gould

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record".
"We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record."
He goes on to give the few examples of supposed transitional fossils that are weak at best and under scrutiny prove only to be more diverse forms of life.
"It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist."
"But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part."
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

I think we have our answer from Mr. Gould. It is neither fact nor theory, but "old-time religion".

Answer 3

Schneb makes a mistake, not really his fault because it is what he has been taught, that evolution is a random process dependant upon chance. That is totally untrue and displays a deep ignorance of evolutionary theory. He also thinks that evolution is about the creation of life. This is again a mistake.
Addressing the Idea that life creation is also a random event it is important to point out that it is not random or chance either. If you look at experiments done over 40 years ago they indicate that the chemicals of life are not only certain to occur but that once they do occur they are self assembling ( a concept missed by most scientists until about 20 years ago) into simple cells. The recent researches indicate viruses as the earliest forms of simple life.

I am not going to track down and list all the references. Anybody interested can search in "Nature" or many other excellent references.

Now as far as Dr Peter Stoner is concerned let us take another look at the assumptions underlieing his numbers?

Answer 4

It isn't too difficult-biological evolution is a fact because species do change genetically through time-the mechanisms involved are theoretical although natural selection is unchallenged. Evolution is a fact and a theory but the word theory is a little straw of hope for the creationists to mistakenly cling to. I should point out to those people who so glibly dismiss evolution that very, very few professional biologists have any problem with it so are you pretentious enough to state you know more about biology than them? Just how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest do you want to be or is it just plain ignorance of the facts founded on bigotry? And forget the thumbs down-I'm stating the facts. If you don't like the facts too bad-they ain't going to change no matter what creationist's opinions are.

Answer 5

Just as the number of marbles that happen to be in a jar is a fact, not relative to the person who guesses at the jar, so the history of life on earth is a string of facts, independent of the theories and people who look at it. Nothing is true for one person and false for another.
On the theory of evolution, it kind of makes sense, considering that the differences and similarities of the animals alive today put them on philogenetic trees implying common descent. That's really all we can say about a theory: does it make sense?
I think it's a really cool way to think of Creation, by the way. Isn't it better to create something self-perpetuating and resilient than something static, fragile, and requiring constant intervention from the Creator?

Answer 6

I agree with the creationists.
You can never convince me that evolution is fact from some likeness between different species.
That is the only evidence that they have.
Somehow the Creator created several species with similar characteristics, so they must have evolved from one another.
I will be willing to say that the similarities could be explained if you were to sit down with the Creator and listen to the reasons that each species has various attributes.
God knows the functions, even though we may no know them.

Personally, I think Evolution is a religion.

grace2u

Answer 7

Watch the documentary "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." Before I watched this movie, I considered myself strictly an evolutionist. It was compelling to see evidence of how unlikely a random structuring of proteins could have formed from nothing and created an organism. For any organism to form, DNA must provide a map. DNA is so complex that we must not rule out "intelligence" for the origin of its design and existence. Opening my mind to this view has been enlightening to me. I still do not consider myself a creationist - in the fundamental sense, but I can see that it is possible for evolution to not tell the whole story of the origin of life.

Answer 8

The buybull - oops, bible - is a fairy tale, not a fact. It is only true if there is a "god", so prove your "god" first.

Let's pretend for a moment your false argument has a smidgen of validity. If abiogenesis and the babble - oops, bible - story of "genesis" were equally weighed, you could prove your "god" exists and win the argument.

Die, and then have your "god" bring you back to life.

You say it's possible, so let's see it happen. If you're not willing to back up your argument with a demonstration, then it means you can't do it, and though you won't admit it, you *know* right now that you can't do it.

Don't give me fables about 2000 years ago that were ripoffs of other religions (there was no "jeebus"), prove your claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And by the way, Shlep - oops, Schneb - got a thumbs down. Not for his point of view, but because he spewed a long cut and paste post instead of giving a succinct argument of his own.


.

Answer 9

Theory. A theory with plenty of evidence to back itself up. To say that evolution is a fact is incorrect, since facts are single pieces of evidence and cannot account for a complex idea like evolution. Most scientifically minded people will acknowledge this, it's the creationists who state most often that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and I'll agree with them. Except for one sticky issue, theory means something different to me than to the common Creationist. A Creationist uses the word theory to say that something is unprovable, unknown, and false; my definition is similar to #1 on the list. The theory of evolution is just like the theory of gravitational pull or the theory of relativity, it attempts to explain a set of phenomena. It cannot be proven by observation, but that doesn't automatically qualify it as false. We can have confidence in it by observing the natural world as it exists, and as it has existed in the geologic record. It is a more comprehensive and eloquent solution to the problem of our existance than defaulting to "God is responsible".

Answer 10

life is not a mystery to be solved, via god or evolution theories. it is a miracle to be lived.

theories are only the most currently version of understanding, not absolutes. and to say that 2000 yr old evidence is believable is truly to have blind faith. jesus performed miracles? because the book controlled by the church said so? what fools. you cant see the trap because you live inside it. only when viewed from outside can you see the folly.

life is god, and in life we evolve. it is not a paradox, but a blend that works well. forget the soul searching, and focus on the life you are living, and live it right now.

too many people live for the next life, that may or may not be, all the while forgetting this one.

nether a criticism or a praise, but we all need to focus on what we can understand: that life lives now.