true science only accepts facts by observation , why is evolution taught as fact in universities?

Question

it used to be the THEORY of evolution , what great discovery have science made in the past few years that would change that?

I thank all who have answered already and especially those who kept your answers within the marges scientific observations without involving your personal beliefs.

Answer 1

The scientific method indeed based on observation, as is the theory of evolution. An incredible number of experiments and observations have been performed which support the theory of evolution. It seems to me that you might be wondering how observations can be made on a process that occurred long ago. Even though something occurred in the past, observations can still be made right now that lead to conclusions about the past. For example, fossils can be discovered and examined, or molecular biologists can trace lineages in DNA, etc. Evolution is today one of the most richly confirmed theories in science.

Also, it appears that you misunderstand what a theory is. Scientific facts and scientific theories are not degrees of the same thing -- a theory is not a "tentative fact", in other words. A theory is an explanation for how something happens, not a statement that it may happen. For example, we have the theory of relativity, but the theory has been confirmed so well by experimental evidence that no physicist today disputes the fact that relativistic effects occur. We have, therefore, both the theory of relativity (how it works) and the fact that it occurs. Likewise, we have both the theory of evolution and also the fact that it occurs.

Answer 2

There are three things to address in your question. The first is the "theory vs. fact" issue, the second is what is taught in universities, and the third is the notion of 'observation'.

Several people have answered your question quite nicely w.r.t. to the THEORY part. The theory of evolution has not changed status in the last few years ... it is, and always will be (unless something better comes along), in the same category as the theory of gravity, or theory of relativity, or the atomic theory of matter, or the germ theory of disease ... namely, something accepted by the vast majority of scientists as the best explanation we have today for a set of observations.

Also, several answers have correctly pointed out that the same word can describe both a "fact" and a "theory". If you understand that the word "evolution" means "change in a species over time in response to environment", then it is an observable FACT that it occurs. Creationists like to use the word "microevolution" for short-term evolution that can be directly observed ... but that word "microevolution" alone concedes that "evolution", on some scale, does occur. (Some also like to say "that's not evolution that's adaptation", but that's just mincing words ... evolution IS adaptation, except at the species level, not the individual.) Where creationists disagree with scientists is on what they call "macroevolution" and scientists call "speciation" (the creation of new species) ... i.e. is the same process that causes observable short-term evolution also capable of speciation? Scientists hold that the answer is clearly YES, evolution can cause speciation, provided two criteria are present ... (a) some event that causes genetic isolation between two subpopulations of a species (such as a river bisecting a valley, a lake drying into two lakes, or a migration event); and (b) TIME ... enough time for the two subpopulations to diverge genetically to the point where they have lost the ability to interbreed even if they do come in contact, thereby becoming two separate species. So to scientists, the Creationist separation of "micro-" and "macro-evolution" has no basis in science.

In summary the *theory* of evolution is an explanation of the *fact* of evolution. Or even, the use of the *fact* of evolution to explain the diversity of life in terms of a common ancestry.

As far as what is taught in universities, that is not the problem. It is what is taught in high schools. It is in high school where you're supposed to be learning that *ALL* of science is "theory" and that this is not an expression of "doubt" but of *humility* ... that science is always aware that *every single statement* made in science is contingent on supporting evidence. By university, this should be a GIVEN, and professors should no longer have to qualify every single sentence with "the evidence indicates that ..." If your high school education singled out evolution, among all of science, to call "just a theory", then THAT is why you are surprised in university to find evolution to be treated no differently than any other scientific set of statements.

As far as observations, the theory of evolution (i.e. that the FACT that things evolve provides an explanation of the current diversity of species in terms of common ancestry), is backed by an enormous body of observational evidence. From fossil structures, to the locations on the earth and the geological layers in which they are consistently found, to radiometric dating, to comparative genetics, molecular evidence, embryology, vestigial and homologous structures, biogeography (the locations of related species on the earth), etc. etc. All these are *observations* that together build a very, very strong case for the theory of evolution.

I hope that helps.

Answer 3

There are facts of evolution and there is the theory of evolution. Facts of evolution include transitional fossils, morphological homologies, fossil genes, etc. In science we use the term theory not as a guess, but as an explanation that best fits the observed evidence. In biology the accepted theory that explains all facts of biology is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The greatest discovery in the past few years in biology is probably the sequencing of genomes in humans and other species. The facts that have been described from this work are the ultimate forensic record of the evolutionary process. For instance, by comparing the human genome with that of the chimpanzee we can see exactly which nucleotide sequences in genes have been modified to result in the differences between the two species.

Answer 4

Because evolution IS a fact. No one questions WHETHER evolution occurs, only HOW it occurs. We have observed it occurring, as certain species evolve both genotypically and phenotypically in response to selective pressures placed upon them. We can now verify our observations with molecular methods of genomic analysis.

Even the late Pope JP2 released an official statement recognizing evolution as a scientifically accepted fact, and "more than just a hypothesis"

Answer 5

You don't know what a scientific theory is, do you?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

We have a theory of gravitation, but I don't see you objecting to that. If you're truly interested in science read a book on evolution, and no, not just an article on your favourite creationist website.

Answer 6

None. All of the modern day scientific evidence disproves evolution. The theory never had any other purpose than to be used by marxists in order to trick people into thinking religion is irrational.

The problem is so many people, including most who work in various fields of science, have damn little understanding of the scientific method and what it means.

There can be no debate on the issue of evolution. It is either right or it is not. And the evidence shows that it is not. Case closed.

Answer 7

as evolution takes thousands if not millions of years to occur so it can't be taught by observation

Answer 8

http://www.answersingenesis.org