Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Question

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record clear and compelling.

"The fossil record is CLEAR, UNAMBIGUIOUS, AND COMPELLING"..!

..Scientific American.

All creationists are wrong in their interpretations of the scientific method. They argue with FALSE FACTS, are ill informed, and spruik lies and deception in an attempt to justify their ridiculous beliefs.

Be ashamed you foolish people! Consider you position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You view the world through a fog of bulldust, that's why so many things aren't clear to you, except your tailor made fairytales.

Answer 1

Of course. And at the same time, people are welcome to test theories themselves whenever they like. That is the beauty of science.

Of course, to test a theory like evolution you have to become informed of the hypothesis and evidence first, which few theists are inclined to do.

Answer 2

A theory is a testable explanation for why observed events happen as they do. Theories might explain whether one event causes another, or whether two correlated events are caused by a third. A theory might assert that some events are necessary, but not sufficient, for certain others to occur. A theory might say that an experiment might have any of several different outcomes, and assign probabilities to each of them. The main thing is that a theory isn't scientific unless it can be tested. Intelligent design might be a theory, but it isn't science unless the existence of the designer can be tested for experimentally. Apparently, no satisfactory test has ever been proposed. Many people, including me, think that the idea behind "intelligent design" is to sneak religion into the science classroom through a back door. If unscientific theories are to be weighed, then I have one that is far more parsimonious than intelligent design. Universes are vacuum fluctuations, and our universe is observed to have life in it because of the weak anthropic principle. (Universes that don't have life in them are never observed.)

Answer 3

Well, that's sorta true. The 'Theory of Relativity' is accepted by the scientific world as a Law. The reason it has not been changed to the 'Law of Relativity' is because no one has figured out how to make money on the change, as yet. Almost everything today has been built considering 'Relativity' a Law.
We have Newton's Laws of Motion, which are true within their realm of magnitude. Once outside the realm of Newtonian Physics, they fall apart - which is when Quantum Physics takes over.
There is the 'Law of Gravity', which is true for all situations. Then there are the 'Laws of Thermodynamics'. These are the only Laws which have not been proven. They are still considered Laws and are open to challenge. They will be considered Laws until someone can disprove them - Einstein claims of all the Laws in the universe, the 'Laws of Thermodynamics' will be the last to be broken.

Thermodynamics rule the universe.........

Answer 4

So how do the laws of nature get discovered and defined? At some point they must be theories, until they are proven. And as far as you using the theory of relativity as an example, that theory is still being tested and is thought by some scientists to be not entirely correct. Atomic theory is still called a theory because you can't actually see atoms. The atomic model we are introduced to in high school science is just a visual representation to help us comprehend how the theory is applied. If the Bible directly contradicted atomic theory, we'd have the same argument as we do on evolution.

I don't care if some scientists have no reservations about the THEORY of evolution. They're not perfect. A few hundred years ago they would've been certain the earth was flat.

And in response to rhsaunders post:

Variety and natural selection do not prove evolution. That's like saying the law of gravity and momentum prove the origin of apples. You can see gravity exert itself when the apple falls down. You can see momentum at work when you roll it across the floor. How does that prove where the apple came from?

Answer 5

All of this is correct. My definition of a scientific theory is: a refutable universal statement about the way that the world works. The word "universal" isn't key (as we'll see in a moment), but the word "refutable" is: it can be proven that the predictive power of any theory obtains strictly from its refutability. It immediately follows as a corollary that an irrefutable theory is useless: it can predict nothing. Since universal statements are inherently unproveable, most scientific theories are in principle unproveable, even though there may not be the slightest doubt (as with Special Relativity) that the theory is correct.
But there is one important scientific theory that is constructed of existential, rather than universal, statements, and is therefore provable: it is the theory of evolution. The statements are two: Variation exists, and natural selection exists. Since both statements are demonstrably true, the theory is proven. Of course, this does not by itself reveal the evolutionary history of any species -- it merely shows that there is one.

Answer 6

Dude, anyone on this nut board will try to make a stupid statement how evolution and gravity cannot be proven. Some people litterally believe in the 6 day creation account and will seem to accept any ludicrous myth from their beliefs. You won't change anybody's mind because they're all uneducated and no one answering your question intelligently has ever taken a freshman biology course

Religion holds everything inferior while its beliefs supreme and thus people who believe in it tend to come up with biased conclusions. Science only attempts to explain the natural and physical world around us, religion however is already preconceived, cannot be proven and does not have an authority over evolution, gravity, Bohr's model, etc People who are biased in judgement are more than likely to work their way around the evidence to support a precept

Answer 7

The fossil record is neither clear (since science still doesn't agree on timelines of what happened when nor what the appearance of the source of the fossil was, nor how it lived, when, where, etc.) nor is it particularly compelling, again since science cannot agree on the particulars. If it were either, there'd at least be a consensus of ONE of these, and there's not. And there are just as many possibilities that have never been explored as there are that have, and there are, Horatio, more things under Heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Most peopel never bother to consider other possibilities and accept Ahkim's (yes, I know that's probably misspelled) Razor, knowing that sometimes the simplist explanation (and evolution is far from a simple explanation) is always the right one. Sometimes the answer is incredibly complex, so while I don't believe that God used evolution to bring about creation, I'd believe that before I'd believe that it was all just dumb luck and coincidence. That God created everything, that He has a purpose in doing it, and that He is still very much in control of it is the simplest explanation. So why don't Razorites accept it?

Answer 8

And yet, they still spout drivel. Keep posting it every so often, maybe the young will listen. I'm afraid I am becoming lazier about trying to actually teach the thumpers anything, they are unable to listen.

Answer 9

Problem with some of the "theories' you speak of have been confirmed as much more than THEORY, evolution, atomic power, and as such the theory of relativity, for "physics" and the known "sciences" have confirmed their VALIDITY........Maybe 60 or so years ago they may have been THEORIES, but not anymore..........

Answer 10

Calm down, Science at its core is negation of Assertions...

Thus, you can be right about finding something wrong.

However, you can never assume something is 100% correct -- that is priori religious trials.