If evolution is just a theory, why aren't other theories of creation explored in the education system?

Question

And why isn't it portrayed as a theory instead of fact when being taught?

Answer 1

Evolution is taught as fact and this is completely wrong....First of all, evolution is a theory, not fact. So even if scientists agree in the theory, its still theory. Also, they are always finding new evidence for and against the theory. One of the most significant finds lately as (attached article) contradicts mans evolution because it indicates that humans and Neanderthals bred with one another. So one species of man did not evolve into another, but both existed at the same time.

Having said this, there are likely elements of both evolution and creation in life.

There is no doubt that there are some elements of natural selection in the process of life. For example, moths in certain environments can assume the same color as their surroundings to evade predators. Its of course the moths that "stick out" from their surroundings that get eaten by their predators and do not survive to reproduce. Thus survivors produce and continue the species. Having said this, I think its naive to think that given that species adapt to their environments, that there is not an overall design element to the moth life form to begin with.

Although there are proven natural selection processes that occur within evolution theory, there are a lot of problems with the overall theory. For example, there are no "in-between" species meaning that species went from one to a completely different one without gradually changing. Darwin even had problems with his own theory. Also, it is more probable that a tornado go through a junk yard and create a 747 than for evolution to have created life. In other words, there is an element of "design" in the existence of life. If there is "design," there must be a creator. But there are definitely natural selection processes that also occur within the overall creation and adapting of life.

I think that there are some natural selection processes in life but that the overall design came from our Creator

Here is also an interesting article on inbreeding that refutes evolution because one species of man did not evolve into another but breed together from separate species:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-01-16T011350Z_01_N15450153_RTRUKOC_0_US-NEANDERTHAL-SKULL.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

Answer 2

I think your difficulty is with understanding the word "theory". When we non-scientists speak of "theories", we just mean "ideas". But the word "theory" used by scientists means something totally different. There is a process an "idea" has to go through before it can become a "theory". Evolution has been through that process. Creationism has not because it fails the second step of the process. For that reason, creationism is not taught as a science and evolution is.

Evolution is portrayed as a theory. But in a science class, it is taught as a part of the scientific method. The last step in the method is a "law", for example the law of gravity. The first step is a hypothesis. Next, it must be tested and observed over and over again by many scientists in many formats for many years at the exclusion of all other ideas with evidence and experiments and control groups. This is an on-going process. After this has happened for a long time and the hypothesis has stood up with scientific evidence against other hypothesis, then it can become a theory. That is why evolution is a theory in the scientific world. It is not a law yet because it is not 100% certain, but it is a theory because nothing else has met the criteria of the scientific process.

Creationism (in the god sense) can be a hypothesis too. But it will fail the very next step in the scientific method. It does not stand up against evidence and experiments, and there are other more reasonable explanations that will. That is why it is not a theory in the scientific sense. You can't test it. That is why it isn't taught in science class.

Answer 3

The story of (judeo/christian) Creation is not a theory, it's a religious myth. And Evolution is not a theory of creation, it involves the progress and improvement of (already) living creatures.

Still, nearly all primitive cultures have creation myths that do no more than present a symbolic concept for how all life began. There are dozens of them each different and dependent upon the culture through which they are written and/or told.

In the US religious teachings are left for the churches. This includes religious creation myths. These are not theories since there is no serious science behind them. Actual scientific theories can, and are, taught in (most) schools. In the right context some myths are also described - hopefully along with details of the culture that produced them.

Answer 4

Yes, it's just a theory (so it's relativity and all scientific theories). But there is a big difference between evolution and creation. There's some evidence that supports evolution (although not perfect), and if you find evidence against it you always can deny evolution. It is not perfect, it is not necessarily true, but it is the best theory we have for the time being.
That is not the case with creation. You cannot demonstrate creation is true neither false, so it cannot be taken as a scientific theory. It is pure faith. That's why it cannot be taught along with evolution.

Answer 5

Because it's a scientific theory, and the dominant one in the scientific community. That means that it has been refined through the adversarial system of the research/university world and has proved capable of standing up to criticism. When you say: It's just a theory, you're misusing the word theory. Gravity and the melting of ice into water are also "just" theories. A theory in this sense is a model we have to explain a set of facts. As far as science is concerned, evolution is the only serious theory out there. Creationism is just a hypothesis (The step before becoming a full-grown theory) - with no real data to back it up, unless, of course, you count scriptures (Which scientists don't).

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
– Galileo Galilei

Answer 6

Evolution is theory and fact. The fact part is that species evolve and change. The theory part is that humans evolved from primitive apes. Creationism is neither fact nor theory. To be a theory, you have to take a hypothesis and scrutinize it by applying science. There is no science to go with creationism, therefor it is only a hypothesis. This is why it isn't taught in science classes. But it is taught in philosophy and anthropology classes.

Answer 7

Stephen Jay Gould:
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Fact, Theory, Law:
A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.

Gravity is a fact, Newton and Einstein had different theories on how it works. Evolution is a fact, Darwin's is one of a few theories to explain the process.

Answer 8

"Evolution is just a theory," is a common argument presented by Creationists.

Darwin's critics always point this out, as if theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory."

Answer 9

other theories are discussed in schools, i remember being taught about christianity, and to a lesser extent other religions in RE classes, this included discusions of their views of cosmology to an extent.

But to describe evolution as a theory is not to say that it is just what "some people think" it is the best fit for the largest amount of available evidence currently. the term "theory" in science is NOT the same as the term theory as it is used to describe for example creationism, which is a theory in the other looser sense.

Answer 10

The furor these days is mostly about intelligent design, which originally made very modest claims before the extermists hijacked it for their own political purposes.
___The loony left wanted to portray it as extreme, because the left hates religion.
___The rigid right wanted to portray it as extreme because it had too much nuance to meet fundamentalist standards.
___The original version simply claimed that the scientific part of evolution was fine, but that the counter-entropic direction of evolution suggested some sort of intelligence "behind" it.
____Scientists who deny that science rests on assumptions that are themselves not subject to proof are either stupid or dishonest, even though WITHIN the scientific system, theories are subject to something resembling proof (never absolute proof.)
___Though some misguided scientists like to press "scientific" arguments against it, the matter is not within the domain of science. It is a philosophical question.

Answer 11

Evolution is portrayed as a theory only because we do not possess a time machine. Evolution is, besides malcontents of religious bodies, universally excepted because of a simple thing: it works.

Creationalism is an idea that only has popularity due to its longevity, and morale implicitations. Also, there are no concrete facts to support creationalism, except for documents thousands of years old. While these documents are genearlly accepted as true, they cannot be proven, and unlike with evolution, the effects cannot be studied.