Why do fundamentalist christians believe that evolution is a theory when it is actually considered within the scientific community as proven fact, and has been for a long time?
2007-03-20 09:34:54 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
because, as we say in Spanish, "the blindest person is he who does not want to see"...if people want to continue believing God took a piece of mud and made a man out of it then that is their problem...I just would like them to explain to me how their idea of creation is better than the one other ancient people had, believing God had created men out of corn and such...when they understand it's all MYTHOLOGY we'll start making some progress
2007-03-20 09:39:20 · answer #1 · answered by Queen of the Rÿche 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Scientific community propose that Evolution is both Theory and Fact.
Evolutionary Theory is of course theory, and the change of alleles with genetics (Evolution) is fact.
Of course, most Creationists try to muddy the waters by assuming the public definition of theory and claiming Evolutionary Theory is "just another theory, alongside Creationism".
However, this is a misunderstanding of the Scientific definition of Theory. In Science, Laws and Theories are equal levels of propositions for different uses.
Laws merely provide a guideline of how the phenomena functions, while Theories explain the phenomena.
Both are considered hypotheses that have been substanitally backed by evidence, so as to become the only logical position to hold on the phenomena in question.
2007-03-20 16:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by eigelhorn 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Actually, it is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. A theory does not mean wild guess. It is a framework used to describe and explain a set of events. A model is a good description of it. There are many theories out there that people do not question because they are only "theories".
Many people attack the theory of evolution, but you have a hard time finding a credible scientist attacking it. Many people will make ludicrous claims, like uranium turns to gas, do discredit different dating methods used to find the date of the planet. What you will find is that these people do not really study science. They poke at it trying to find holes. When they think they find one, they stop investigating to see if what they have found really means anything. A lot of this comes from a lack of understanding of the scientific method and how to do research in a scientific way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
2007-03-20 16:40:05 · answer #3 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these attempts to test their theories experiments. Experimental science, better known as empirical science, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our lives.
The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we wish to study should be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any theory we might propose as an explanation for an observable and repeatable event must be testable: we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.
On the basis of experiment to prove a theory evolution cannot be proven because of the time it takes. Therefore it is not as you state a proven fact.
Get A Grip.
2007-03-20 16:46:44 · answer #4 · answered by Get A Grip 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Evolution is a theory. And actually it is a theory that as time goes on is less supported by science and scientists. This may surprise you but it is true and you can discover this for yourself with some investigative work.
Oh and by the way.... Evolution has become it's own religion and those that believe in it can be as intolerant and fundamentalist as anyone else. That is also a fact.
Have a great day.
2007-03-20 16:43:27 · answer #5 · answered by redflite 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
well I just wrote a rather legnthy answer on why the earth is young and evolution can't be possible. I hope you don't mind but I am just going to copy and paste the meat of it here
Ok first is uranuim dating. When people use uranuim to date things the uranuim puts out a gas. While the uranuim dates fluxuate to produce a much larger date the gas stays constant. When scientists do this they have 2 dates to choose from. they usually choose the bigger date. for example: the scientists are trying to date a fossil. They can choose the uranuim which might say it is 300 million years old, or they could choose the gas which says it is 1000 years old. The scientists choose the 300 million years, because it goes with their theory of evolution even though it is not the logical one.
Number two is carbon 14 dating. This states that all matter has traces of carbon 14 in it. Over time of millions of years the Carbon 14 dissapates until their is little or none left. To test this they took some items that according to evolution should have little or no carbon 14 in it. They tested it and it had HALF of it's carbon 14 still in it. proving that the earth is still very young
Thats it. hope you didn't mind the copy and pasting. God bless.
2007-03-20 16:39:39 · answer #6 · answered by Tman 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
They you yould know the difference of Scientific theory, Fact and then last and the only thing that is PROVEN would be scientific LAW.
There is no such things as a scientific PROVEN fact.
2007-03-20 16:43:21 · answer #7 · answered by chersa 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So was spontaneous generation. The entire scientific community used to believe that maggots formed spontaneously on dead meat, dead leaves turned into frogs, etc. Then Louis Pasteur showed their 'proven facts' were all wrong.
2007-03-20 16:41:13 · answer #8 · answered by Free Ranger 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because "evolution is just a fact how can you believe an unproven fact!" doesn't sound as convincing a comment to make when trying to convince someone to abandon science and believe Bronze Age myth instead. Say no to jesus.
2007-03-20 16:45:45 · answer #9 · answered by Say no to jesus 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is NOT a fact. It IS a theory.
Unfortunately, you do not understand the actual meanings of either word when applied to a scientific - as opposed to vernacular - concept.
Try looking up PROVE in a scientific sense, as well.
2007-03-20 16:38:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It is not a proven fact for scientific community. It is still a hypothesis.
2007-03-20 16:40:19 · answer #11 · answered by John 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋