Why evolution is called a "Theory"?

Question

"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.

In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics." wiki


Gravity = THEORY of universal gravitation, THEORY of relativity

Answer 1

As you say, it's because everything in science is called a theory once there is evidence to support it.

In other words, in science, a 'theory' is just a hypothesis + substantial evidence.

----------

All that's left to do is to point out the many problems in agfreak90's answer.

> "One computer thinks all their parts just fell together by chance while the other thinks it was made by humans. "

Wrong. Evolution is not "things falling together by chance." Evolution is NOT just randomness. If you think evolution is just randomness, then you don't understand evolution AT ALL.

> "We are incomprehendibly more complicated than a computer and yet scientists think we fell together by chance."

No they don't! (See previous comment.)

> "man was created in God's image, so what you're telling me is that God is bacteria?"

No, what people are telling you is that God *made* bacteria, and multi-celled organisms, and fish, and lizards, and mammals, and apes, and humans ... and God used evolution to do it ... all of it. As you say, God is not limited by time.

Do you really think God is unable to use evolution to create what He wants? Are you putting a limit on what God can do, or what mechanism he can choose to do it?

> "are scientists aware that spontanious generation was dissproven 200 years ago?"

Of course they are ... it was a scientist (Pasteur) who disproved it (although minor correction: it was only 150 years ago) ... and did so by simply sealing off a bowl of soup from bacteria for a few days. But this experiment has no bearing at all on what can happen if it's more than a few days, but approximately 1.2 *billion* years. If you can't tell the difference between a bowl of soup, and the conditions on the early earth ... or between a few days and a billion years ... then you really did learn nothing in science class!

"I would highly recomend watching Kent Hovind's videos."

Ah! That explains the awful state of your scientific arguments.

Kent Hovind is a well-known CLOWN that even other creationists (like the people at answersingenesis.com) are embarassed by him. If you depend on Kent Hovind to teach you science, then you are *guaranteed* to sound like a scientifically illiterate twerp like he is.

And please understand that my disdain is not for you ... but for Kent Hovind. He is responsible for way too many good, well-meaning Christians going out into the world and into science forums like this and making fools of themselves with truly BAD science. (E.g. thinking that Pasteur's experiment has any bearing AT ALL on evolution.)

"He is offering to anyone who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct a quarter of a million dollars. "

This is a famous, and totally bogus offer. Kent Hovind has been convicted of tax evasion and doesn't even have the money to pay the employees of his ministry. He doesn't *have* $250,000 to give out, even if he were to have a shred of integrity to judge the evidence honestly (since he's the person doing the judging).

There is lot's of information about this:
"Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
or this:
"Kent Hovind's Challenge to Evolutionists"
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm
or
"The Hovind $250,000 Challenge"
http://www.kent-hovind.com/250K/challenge.htm#names


Please investigate Kent Hovind a little bit. Believe me. He is only making you look ridiculous.

Answer 2

Well, here are some definitions of the word "theory":

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world - Princeton

A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation - Houghton Mifflin

An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916) - National Science Teachers Association

Of course, a Christian would describe a theory as something completely disprovable and disproved so they could debunk evolution. But then Christian held back science for over one and a half thousand years until they failed to silence Galileo by putting him under house arrest.

Answer 3

The scientific method is not so much a body of knowledge, but involves the process of falsifiability, whereby an experiment is performed to test a hypothesis, and if that experiment does not disprove the hypothesis, it is incorporated into theory, until something comes along which does disprove it, but nothing in science can ever be proved, only disproved. If disproved, that theory is either modified, or abandoned, in favor of one which fits the observed facts better.

Answer 4

A theory is a postulation with profound scientific logic just short of absolute proof. That`s what evolution is.

Answer 5

Because it can't be proven... at all... it's like two computers arguing about whether or not humans exist and made them. One computer thinks all their parts just fell together by chance while the other thinks it was made by humans.

The only difference is that this conversation is an underexageration of what scientists say. We are incomprehendibly more complicated than a computer and yet scientists think we fell together by chance.

Just in case you think both evolution and the bible is true and that God started us out as bacteria and then we evolved... man was created in God's image, so what you're telling me is that God is bacteria????

So we've already ruled out the possibility of God starting us as bacteria then us evolving, so how do the scientists say life began? They think it rained on the rocks for millions of years and absorbed the oxygen and eventually formed a macro-molecule... so... dirt (inannimate) and oxygen (inannimate) combined to form a living molecule (annimate)... are scientists aware that spontanious generation was dissproven 200 years ago?

A question I get a lot is, "Well, fine then... where does life come from then? God had to begin sometime too!!!! When did he begin?!?!?!"... God existed before TIME... the word "when" is therefore irrelivent... difficult concept to grasp, but judging by your question I'd say you should be able to.

"Science" is when you observe, experiment, and prove things. Evolution is a religion. You can't do any of those things. The only difference between Evolutionism and Christianity is that we admit that it's a religion and we can't teach it in school. As Kent Hovind put it, "We believe, 'In the beginning God...' and you beieve, 'In the beginning Dirt...'"

I would highly recomend watching Kent Hovind's videos. He points out all the flaws in the evolution theory... well, a lot of them... I know a few he doesn't include in his programs... Even if you believe in evolution I'd recomend watching it... see if you're as smart as you think. Can you beat him? He is offering to anyone who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct a quarter of a million dollars. Feel like a debate?

You can watch his videos for free on google videos. (No copyright, so it's legal.)

Just to avoid stereotypes, I'm not an uninformed bible nut. I'm a bit of a scientist myself. I have an IQ of 148, can solve the rubick's cube in under a minute, and have memorized pi to the 300th decimal place (I got bored.)... The only difference between other scientists and myself is that I don't assume that the text books are right... I prove it for myself and evolution CANNOT be proven or even come close.

Answer 6

The reason that evolution is only considered a theory is due to the fact of another belief of anthropology called Creationism, a basically Christian way of explaining why we are here, in answer to your question, there is a good amount of scientists that believe in Creationism, and if their isnt a 100% agreement, such as the Law of gravity, it cannot be a law.

Answer 7

I've heard it's because it can't be directly observed.
Gravity can be. So I guess that doesn't make sense to call it a theory, unless we add universal.. and then the theory is that gravity is the same everywhere as we've observed.

Answer 8

a theory means it's a good idea but can't be proven 100%

Laws are proven to hold true 100% of the time

Answer 9

it just it gosh