When scientists refer to evolution as a theory, are they expressing reservations about its truth?

Answer 1

No, only uncertainty about the details. Similarly, the 'Germ Theory of Disease' tells us that micro-organisms cause disease, and no-one actually doubts that they do, even though there is much still to learn about the mechanisms and sources of disease.

I'm surprised to see Schneb shoot himself in the foot with this argument, below. He should have better arguments than this.

Answer 2

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Answer 3

A theory is a circumstance that is accepted for the moment as truth and it will continue to be accepted as truth until further evidence suggests otherwise. Then, a new theory will be developed.

Answer 4

no, evolution, like all difficult and long lasting processes takes a lot of time to understand, more time than a lifetime or several of them.
a theory exists as such not because of reservation, but because the precise mechanics are not fully understood, not because there is doubt as to it's inherent rational and nearly formulaic truth.

Answer 5

Most scientists don't refer to evolution as a theory, because its a proven fact.

Answer 6

Science is humble. We know that we can never get to the bottom of it all on any of the interesting questions. We use the term "theory" to say that something, like evolution, has been proven to an extremely high degree of confidence. But that could change with new information.

This is one of the things that makes science superior to belief.

Answer 7

A theory, in science, is something that all available supposed evidence points to as being a fact. What the average person defines as "theory" is called a "hypothesis" in science. The "theory" part is in the how, not the if.

The fact about evolutionists can be summed up in this quote by George Wald...

When it comes to the origins of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible. That life arose from spontaneous chance. - George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American May 1954

Though proven wrong by sheer math, they still refuse to give it up, just because they cannot stomach the alternative.

"Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science."
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Answer 8

No they aren't. I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

(I know you already know this)

Answer 9

Nope.

There is still a little debate on a couple of details in the mechanism, but there is none at all on the big idea.

Answer 10

No,only that they don't understand how it happened.Yet, that is.They will just like they discovered how the planets work.If I remember my History correctly.Religion stood in the way of that too.