Which definition do you believe?

Question

We've been arguing for years on what exactly the word "theory" means arguing about the meaning of Evolution. The Christians seem to think the word theory means an opinion or guess and use that uneducated idea to support their arguments against evolution and for their god.

The thing is, science does not define theory in the same way as for the rest of the english language.

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.

But then, what of the scientific definition of the word theory?

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 of gravitation.

Thus the word theory as the Christians attempt to define it is wrong.

In science, its a much more all encompassing thing.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. 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.

So, which one do you believe is the correct one given as I've said here?

Actually, I have to agree with one thing. Using the word theory is a bad idea because it makes regular people actually think that its a guess when it isn't. But then, what other word could be used in its place?

We could, of course, use a short definition, but that would make it difficult when putting it in textbooks and the like, so a single word is better.

Ahh the Law of Gravity. But you see Law in science is also a different thing. This law you speak of also encompasses the Theory of General Relativity, so that the Law of Gravity could also be called into question by that definition because it is comprised of theories.

The Law of Gravity has a few problems of its own as there's no mediator of gravity. Newton himself felt that action at a distance was unsatisfactory. And, as the graviational forces must be acted simultaneously in order to make the Law of Gravity work, it puts it in direct opposition to Einsteins theory of special relativity.

Thus turning the "Law" of gravity into nothing more than a theory as well.

The Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are basically in the same category of things. Gravity is just more accepted because you can feel its active effects.

You know gravity exists because you feel its effects.

Annie, you're wrong only in that you're applying YOUR definition of the word theory to the actual scientific meaning of the word theory. The scientific meaning of the word is the important one in this case because you're trying to argue against science.

You can't argue against science if you're using the wrong definition.

Answer 1

Obviously the correct definition for "theory" in science is the definition of theory in the context of science!

These are different versions of this meaning:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts & as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

"A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, originating from &/or supported by experimental evidence. A systematic & formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical & testable."

"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses & verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."

But... I've found that no matter how many times certain people are presented with the true meaning, they actually say "yeah... but evolution is still JUST a theory... it's not PROVEN!!" It's amazing how easily they can let information go in one ear and out the other when they NEED the word to mean one thing in order to avoid massive cognitive dissonance.

Answer 2

They use the word "theory" for terms ranging from theory to hypothesis to opinion. The will offer opinions with no rationale as "theories". They do not understand that hypotheses become theories when their predictive powers are substantially demonstrated. They then claim that something is "just a theory" because it hasn't been promoted to "Law". They do not understand that a scientific law in modern usage means a simple set of reproducible observations. Newton used the term as "axiom" -- the Law of Universal Gravitation -- to mean an untested assumption on which his mathematical was based. The theory of gravity is still a theory.

Answer 3

It is an unfortunate word, because there is the strict scientific definition of the word, which those of us with scientific training understand, but also the more common usagewhich has been debased, and basically has come to mean just a guess.

Words evolve and their meaning changes..especially in English. The word "gay" now has a totally different meaning than it used to 40 years ago.

I think we probably should lose the word "theory" when talking about evolution. We are never going to 'take it back' from its generic use. I don't have a suggestion for a replacement word, but perhaps science should come up with a new one so that we don't have to keep hearing this invalid argument "it's only a theory"

Answer 4

Actually the scientific explaination differes from yours.

Theory implies there is enough imperical evidence to support a conclusion.

The thing of it is, we are extrapolating.

A Catholic Abbott, who is the father of genetics, has made evolutioinary proofs in the field of botany, but, unfortunately, you can't GRAFT a leg onto a human with a bad leg, like you can a banch to an apple tree with sour fruit.

These proofs, however, do establish in insects and plants that evolution occurs, because it is faster in their world than in the realm of humans.

We then extrapolate this to human evolution.

That could be a serious fault.

But, we won't know for 100,000 or more years

Conjecture is termed something else in the science world and I forget what they call it.

As an example of how theory works, the so-called "Big Bang" which was postulated in the 1930s by a Catholic Priest with a PH D in Physics, in his postuation he predicted we would find gamma radiation in the background left over from the initial "bang" and in the 1970s and 1980s they were actually able to measure what seems to be that footprint, hence his postulations was elevated to a credible theory, which replaced 'steady state' as the predominate theory in Cosmology.

Answer 5

So, the rest of us who define theory as speculation, are wrong and the science community (obviously higher intelligence) definition is correct. Hmm, you know, none of you can completely wholeheartedly say without a doubt that evolution, as you explain it, is the correct theory, none of you were there. While you base your knowledge on a Theory of a man you didn't know personally and are taking the word of others who have done the same, how do you know nothing was changed in the translations. Yes, evolution has occurred, did we evolve from apes I think not, did God create all life and it's complex evolution, I think so...My belief is based on what is written in the Bible and by Faith. Yours is based on what is written and some degree of faith, as well. Just because you can prove we have evolved, you haven't proved there is no God and that it is all not a part of his Divine plan...I choose to have faith and believe what is written by a Divine intelligence, you have chosen to believe in mere men and there human intelligence... A theory...Hmmm

Answer 6

In 1859, it was a theory. Merely a conjecture of Charles Darwin (and others) based on observations he had made.

Now, nearly 150 years later- the theory has had such consistent and overwhelming scientific support, it has been proven.

It's no longer a theory- religious people just call it that to create some measure of doubt in it, so as to be able to justify their own unsupportable beliefs.

Answer 7

The problem with most teaching on the nature of the Godhead is that people interpret it through the "lens" of Trinitarianism. Unlike man, God is everywhere-present, all-knowing, and all-powerful; hence, He is able to maintain a divine existence and a distinct human existence and yet still remain indivisibly and absolutely One (Deuteronomy 4:6). "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). God the Father is the only true God (John 17:1, 3), and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God the Father, the only true God, manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). To further expound on this point, the Holy Spirit is not another "person" in an alleged "trinity," but rather is the Spirit of God the Father, the only true God (Matthew 10:20). The Spirit of God is no more a distinct "person" than is the spirit of man.

Answer 8

We already know all of this but it's the wrong approach. Instead of defining what a theory is we should be pointing out that species evolution is an indisputable fact founded on solid evidence and only the biological mechanisms are theoretical.

Answer 9

No . . . you are wrong

Once a Scientific theory is proved, it becomes Law

i.e. The Law of Gravity

In fact . . . the Theory of Evolution is under great attack and is not standing up to the testing of the model . . . in fact the model is constantly being changed

the latest model - scientist are looking off world - they believe that this planet was seeded . . . that not enough millions of years have expired to allow for evolution . . . (the theory is still a theory).

You sound like you know what you are talking about . . . but you do not.

Answer 10

What you say is true.

However, within the next eight hours, at least one question will use the phrase 'just a theory' and at least ten answers will use the same phrase.

You cannot correct people who don't WANT to be corrected. You cannot force-feed the truth to a person, he will vomit it back up all over you.

Patience, dear. Patience.