If we consider Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be absolute truth, then why do we still call it a theory?

Question

In our schools, it is the only option allowed to be taught concerning the creation (which, coincidentally, has nothing to do which Darwin's theory), however improbable the other theories may be. And, from what it seems, it is the only thing the general population considers to be truth in this field. This being the case, why do we still call it a theory?

I would appreciate it if you had substancial proof to back up your argument. Thank you.

I am afraid I did not clarify my question.
I realize that nothing in science can be proven. However, many theories have so much evidence to support them that they are now deemed "laws" (such as the law of thermodynamics). If there is so much evidence for evolution, why is it not "Darwin's Law of evolution"?

Answer 1

It could be the reason that most scientists do not know how to come up with a better answer than what Darwin had. Some of course supported the Creation Theory, while now there are increasing amount of scientists who root for the Perfect Creation Theory, where animals are actually created 'as-is', no precursors, no ancestors, just 'are'. (Correct me if I'm wrong, people!)

I don't consider Darwin's theory as the absolute truth. There are many loopholes in it. For instance, if it's true evolution happens because of isolation, natural selection and a bunch of other reasons, why haven't we see any changes in those Galapagos Island creatures already? The given time frame is long enough for observers to see some changes, at least. And if a group of fish start to eat in such a way that their mouths turn to left, does this warrant the theory as true? I beg to differ. It's like looking at a new born baby who is left-handed and say that the next human evolution will involve left-handedness.

The theory holds up as THE theory because it answers a lot of questions. A theory is only as true as the questions, and since scientists ask the correct questions, it remains true. What if the next question put by our future generation can turn the theory on its head, or even topple it over? That will be the end of the theory, and the start of another theory.

I like this sentence because it puts everything succinctly in place:

'Theories are created by scientists because they don't know the real answers.'

Answer 2

A scientific theory is different than the general understanding of "theory". In the science community gravity is still a "theory". And, most people who are not of the flat earth society agree that gravity is fact, even though Einstein's Theory of Relativity changed some of the details.

In science, a theory is a work in progress. The fact of evolution has so much evidence to support it that the general truth of evolution is not in question. There are details and new findings that effect the overall knowledge of evolution, but that doesn't change the basic facts of evolution.

Creation and Intelligent design are belief systems for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Schools should not be teaching belief systems unless they are teaching every single one in the whole world. And, then, they should be taught as "beliefs" and not facts based on evidence.

Answer 3

We shouldn't accept the Theory of Evolution as truth because it is a theory. However, the definition of truth is debateable at best. Is truth somthing that everyone agrees on or what scientific facts actually prove. Does 2+2 = 4 if everyone on the planet says 2+2 = 5 and uses that in all calculations? Everything is relative.

Answer 4

We discussed this in my evolution class. In scientific studies, nothing can be proven 100%, your findings either support or do not support your hypothesis.
For something to become a theory it must be tested and supported many times. Theories and laws are almost the same. Gravity is classified as a theory.

I am not the best at explaining this, I hope I made my point well.
Good luck finding the answer. =)

Answer 5

In science, we call everything a theory, including the theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, and the germ theory of disease. I don't think any scientist in the world would argue that any of those three theories remains unproven; however, in the heyday of their discovery, the church argued against all these theories as well. Evolution falls into the same category. There is no credible scientist in the world who would dispute it, and there is as much evidence which proves evolutionary descent as there is that germs make you sick (and not demons as the church wanted you to believe many hundreds of years ago). Perhaps some of the minor details of evolution are in dispute and are frequently discussed by those in the field; however, there is absolutely no doubt as to the manner by which diverse groups of organisms have arisen and will continue to arise in the future.

Don't get hung up with the terminology (i.e. "theory"). There is a mountain of evidence that cannot be disputed by any reasonable person.

Answer 6

In science, NOTHING is ever considered to be absolute truth. EVERYTHING is "theory."

This has nothing to do with evolution. This is basic science.

For example, there is something called the "atomic theory of matter", which is the theory that all matter is made of atoms. It doesn't matter how much this model works, how many experiments verify it, how basic we consider it in the teaching of physics ... it is *still* called the atomic *theory* of matter ... and always will be.

The same applies to the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, etc. etc. ... all of these are accepted with a high degree of confidence by scientists as the best theory there is ... but we *still* call them "theories" ... and always will.

And the same holds for the theory of evolution. Scientists accept it with a high degree of confidence ... for the sole reason that there is a HUGE amount of evidence supporting it. But we still call it the "theory" of evolution ... and always will.

In other words, you science teachers have somehow failed to teach one of the basic differences between science and religion. Science always, always, always, says "we can never know anything for sure." That is both the weak point, and the strong point of science. It is a weakness because people with strong religious background often don't get this idea of accepted coubt. But it is a strength because that means that science is always, always, always questioning itself, correcting itself, looking for a better answer no matter how good the answer already is.

Another mistake you are making is asking for "substantial proof". Again, in science we don't talk about "proof". Instead we talk about "evidence", which is very different. You prove things in mathematics. You can't "prove" things in science. And again, this has nothing to do with evolution, but with SCIENCE in general.

> "In our schools, it is the only option allowed to be taught concerning the creation"

Be clear ... this is the only option allowed to be taught IN SCIENCE CLASS. It is perfectly legitimate to consider creationism and other theories of creation in NON-SCIENCE classes like debate class, philosophy, comparative religion, etc.

But in science class, if there is some theory that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of professional scientists in the world (as in over 96% of scientists in the U.S. and over 99% of scientists in the rest of the world), then teaching things considered by only 1% to 4% of scientists does nothing but confuse students.

And even if we were to consider other *scientific* alternatives to evolution (and I can't think of any), there is no need to consider religious or spiritual alternatives to science IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

Answer 7

Evolution beyond micro (small changes within a kind) have never been observed or proven. Every missing like has been proven to be a fraud. Ask Secretsause where his 'huge' source of proof is. They have to lie in the school text books to try to get our kids to believe in this dumb theory. I'd call it a religion.