Should the "theory" of evolution be reclassified as a "hypothesis"?

Question

In science a "theory" is an idea that is supported by factual information with the hope that one day enough facts will be gathered to move a theory into the realm of being considered a scientific fact. Further down the line from Fact to Theory is Hypothesis.

But the theory of evolution finds it's major support not from facts but from hypothetical interpretations of evidence. Scientists take the fact that natural selection causes variations within a species and "hypothesize" that this could lead to one species becoming a totally different species.

Scientists take the fact that radiation causes mutations and "hypothesize" that random mutations added vast amounts of useful information to the DNA structures of the ancestors of every plant and animal alive today.

Given these truths, should the theory of evolution be reclassified as a hypothesis?

"So far nobody has disproved it. A hypothesis is an untested idea. "

No, nobody has disproved it but what tests has it passed? What proofs are there that one species like a reptile can become a mammal? What proof is there that random mutations can add VAST amount of useful information to DNA when 99% of mutations are harmful or benign and the 1% of useful mutations have to do with things like a variation in color or the size of a bird's beak or something like that?

Answer 1

You've got a good point. There's no doubt that the case for evolution is much, much weaker than that for a phenomenon like gravity. However whether you actually do that rather depends upon one's context. Different people use different words the same way. Although it's less obvious than the difference between "jam" when talking about a band versus "jam" when you're at the breakfast table with a dry piece of toast, the distinction is there.

In normal English usage "hypothesis" is generally regarded as a weaker form of "theory". In scientific usage, a "theory" actually several different meanings and usages. Sometimes it's used just as it is in English. However, in other cases "theory" refers to an abstract conceptual model of how something behaves, and you can have situations where multiple theories can be true and not cancel each other out.

A perfect example is modern-day physics, which is stuck on the horns of such a dilemma. We've got a mountain of evidence by everything from explaining a wobble in the planet Mercury to observations of gravitational lensing demonstrating that Einstein's theory of General Relativity works. We've also got lots of evidence based on the behavior of subatomic particles that confirm Quantum Mechanics. (on a historical aside, Einstein him self made some of the key advancements to prove to the world that Quantum Mechanics worked, but he never fully accepted it and eventually spent the rest of his life trying unsuccessfully to topple it). The problem is that General Relativity is demonstrated at very large scales, but Quantum Mechanics is confirmed in phenomena at atomic scales. Unfortunately we don't have any good way of applying either theory in the domain of the other.

We have so much evidence validating both theories that we can't simply toss one of them out. So the solution is to try and put them together. That's the search for what's called a "unified theory of physics", or some call informally a "theory of everything".

Scientific theories are often multifaceted things, and the competition of theories doesn't always end with one completely knocking the other out like some game of "king of the mountain". While some theories end up being rejected entirely, like the theory of spontaneous generation, others are incorporated into successor theories. Newton's laws of motion weren't disproven either by Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity. Both built upon and extended Newton's work in different ways.

You might find it interesting to do some review reading in the history of science, and pay particular attention to how theories are tested and formed. Some good examples to try are how we came to understand the structure of the galaxy, and how we came to accept what's called the "central dogma of molecular biology". In both cases experiments were performed that convinced some people but not others, and only later did someone think up a test that convinced the toughest critics. You might also find it interesting to read some generalist books on the scientific method, as well as some books that talk about the philosophy of science. You'll might find Thomas Kuhn (the man who gave us the phrase "paradigm shift") and Karl Popper in particular to be interesting reading.

Good question! I hope you have fun exploring the issue.

Answer 2

Evolution is proven. The definition is a change in a gene pool over time. That has happened and been observed. The theory is that evolution accounted for the different species on the planet. they take evidence from many different sciences and they all point to evolution. so it is a theory. It has substantial evidence to support it.

You should also note that not only mutations can causes evolution. The influenza virus adapts to our vaccines every year because of natural selection, but not mutation.

Answer 3

A hypothesis is an estimated guess on an outcome before an experiment has been conducted. The experiments (or more likely, observations) have been conducted and the product is the Theory of Evolution. So it should remain a theory. The only way to change its classification would be to propose another theory that can explain the origins and mutations of living things that is more plausible than evolution, or to prove evolution so it no longer needs to remain a theory.

The problem with evolution is, no matter how plausible it is, no one will ever 'see' it happen. But just because they don't doesn't mean it isn't. Atoms have existed forever, but no one will ever see one with their eyes, but we can prove that they exist.

Answer 4

For one thing churchy, science is never a real fact (or can only be 99.9999% accurate), a theory only becomes a theory through the eight steps of the scientific method, that something can be proven or confirmed; therefor something new can always be added changing the theory. A hypothesises is nothing more than an unproven idea i.e., biblical/creationists ideas are a hypothes. Your narrow interpretation of evolution is trying to place that definition on humans, when evolution is really survival of all species and natural selection of all spices. Just because you want to believe the earth is 6 thousand years old and that apes where f#*&ed by demons or aliens, that is up to you, that is your hyposthosis.

Answer 5

A hypothesis is an idea to be tested. A theory has been tested and stands up to the test.

The theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly, and continues to be tested daily by thousands of scientists worldwide. It will continue to stand as such until reliable data is available that is inconsistant with the theory. Despite claims to the contrary, the theory of evolution is probably the single most tested and challanged idea in all of biology.

In addition, it can be observed, and indeed has been observed in real time in several organisms with short lifespans. If someone disagrees with the idea of evolution on moral, ethical, or religious grounds, so be it. But to claim it as scientific fraud or untested is dishonest.

Answer 6

The problem with this question is your lack of understanding of the scientific method and the definitions of theory and hypothesis, actually.

Rather than eat the offered carrot (or try to anyways) by describing the problems you have with evolution, I'd like to point out that a scientific theory is an explanation for an evidence set.

A scientific hypothesis is a question based on preliminary observations.

I'm sure you actually knew this, and aren't playing silly redefinition games.

Answer 7

The believe all they read in a book of stories made up by half-naked, severely sun-affected sand savages based in Bronze Age myths, legends and superstitions. They believe 31 verses in ONE chapter of a book of stories made up to answer the questions of children and the scammers made up some stuff to satisfy them. Modern day science, especially medical science, is built on Evolutionary Theory. I wonder how many True Believers™ would take their sick son or daughter to a doctor – who was a witchdoctor steeped in Bronze Age myths, legends and superstitions … who ignored the discoveries of Modern Science. These Defenders of Ignorance above/before me ensure that USians will soon cease to be world leaders in Scientific Research – apparently the numbers of young USians going ‘into science’ are at an all time low. I am still reeling at the ignorance some answerers have shown … all based on FEAR … all based on the paranoid premise that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything we do, think and say, 24/7. ~

Answer 8

Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories ever. So far nobody has disproved it. A hypothesis is an untested idea.

Answer 9

When something is overwhelmingly obvious, like the process of evolution through the centuries, is there really a need to hypothesize about it when an intelligent person HAS to admit that it is indeed so?
I think the only people who want to keep it a "theory" are those that believe in creation.
So, the answer to your question seems obvious to me, NO!

Answer 10

No. Like it or not, evolution has been tested and hasn't failed yet. If you believe you can design a test to disprove it, feel free to do so. But many scientists have tried before. Remember, evolution wasn't always accepted as standard science.