Why do people belive that evolution is fact, when it is still a theory.?

Question

Not to long ago many sceintists came together and to dicuss the evedince for evolution, and found it wanting many scientist voted against evolution, for lack of proof. Darwin himself at his death said that his theory was incorrect so why do people hold on so strong to somthing that the orginal person who started it said it was false.

Answer 1

Here are a few real quotes for you, from some real scientists. These kids that play on the internet might find them interesting, as well:

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

Answer 2

I love it when people like you get on here and say "Not too long ago many scientists came together," etc. etc. When? Where? How many of them were there? Who were they? Of course, those mysterious scientists can prove you are right, even if you cannot produce any evidence that they even exist. What's the difference between this and believing in evolution? Hmm...

The truth of the matter is that the majority of scientists believe in evolution, despite a very small minority that do not (if you want to come up with a half decent argument, why don't you look into the molecular theories these few scientists hold as evidence that evolution may not be true?). That said, it IS a theory. You are right about that, and very few people deny it. Hardly anyone believes it is a fact, contrary to what you say here. But it is a theory with a mountain of evidence to support it (see links below).

The fact is that you, yourself, believe in literally hundreds and hundreds of things that are only theories, or were once theories that were commonly believed and proved to be true. That is how reason works. You hypothesize on something based on what evidence you have, and then you experiment and study to find out if it is true. At one time, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was only a theory, and yet for centuries before it was proven, the majority of people held that it was true. Ah, but it was only a theory! Does that mean it wasn't actually true until we were able to prove it?

To further make yourself look like an idiot, you claim that Darwin said it wasn't true when he died. That is a lie. I guarantee you that you cannot produce a document that says that, at least, not one that isn't written by some fundamentalist trying to prove that evolution is false. I've studied intellectual history for over a decade, including Darwin, and I know this isn't true.

But really bugs me is that people like you get on here and start spewing this nonsense, and then the rest of us Christians have to deal with everyone thinking we're all a bunch of idiots who ignore any reason and logic. I, for one, am a Christian who believes in evolution. Do I believe it is a fact? No. But I can't prove to an atheist that God exists, either. Does that mean he doesn't exist? Based on the available evidence that I possess on both evolution and God, I believe in both. When the evidence suggests otherwise, I will change my mind.

Why don't you go back into your hole, do some research on the reasons why some scientists DON'T believe in evolution, and come back here and make a logical and reasonable argument? You can do better than this. The argument is out there. Go find it and stop wasting our time with this amateur fluff.

Answer 3

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

You should learn what a scientific theory is.

You should read reputable sources rather than believe lies.

A fact is a statement about reality for which the evidence is so strong that to disbelieve it would be simply foolish.

A theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. For instance Human Sexual Reproduction is the theory that explains where babies come from.

The claim that Darwin recanted is a well known lie. Originally told by a person called Lady Hope who claimed Darwin told her that on his death bed when in actuallity she never was near Darwin and was found to have even been in a different country at the time. Even some creationist organizations have admitted this was a lie yet dishonest Christians still persist in promoting this lie. Darwin's family stated they were with him the entire time and she never was there. Lady Hope also had a reputation as a liar about many other issues as well and was considered to be very unstable.

However most people do not know that Galileo did recant. Of course the reason Galileo recanted his belief that the earth revolved around the sun was that the church would have killed him otherwise. Obviously today everyone believes the earth revolves around the sun even though Galileo recanted.

Answer 4

First: Do some reading about what a theory in a scientific sense is (see below):
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, 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.

Next:
Exactly what 'get together' of scientist are you referring to that found evolution 'wanting'? Site some source. Your statement lacks any credibility.

Next:
That old death bed confession about Darwin renouncing his work is false and more than likely propagated by the religious right.

Finally;
The are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Will we ever know the entire, complete picture? Probably not but evolution is an undeniable fact that is taking place all around us.

Answer 5

I remember reading about that and I wish I could remember the source so that I could cite it for you. What many people can't get through their heads is that a "theory" is not a "scientific law." A law is a theory that has been proven without a shadow of a doubt, like gravity. A theory is a hypothesis that has some evidence to back it up, but also has not been proven as fact. It is still an idea. No real scientist is going to vote that something is a fact without real and undeniable evidence.

And I have read most of the responses. Be happy when you get the nasty responses. It means you have posted a good question. My only suggestion is next time to cite a source so that people can see for themselves what you are saying.

And Isaac Newton is the one is creditied with The Universal Law of Gravitation not Einstein, and even though it is described as being part of the Theory of Relativity, that is not what the theory is about.

Answer 6

First of all Darwin converting or whatever when he died is total myth.
For the sake of argument lets say a group of scientist came together yada yada.
A long time a go a bunch of Christians got to together and voted on what was correct and incorrect to put in a little book they call the Bible. If you can call that FACT then evolution can be called fact on research.

Answer 7

please go to this creationist website:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996
and read up why you should not use the argument "evolution is just a theory" in order to promote creationism.
Also using the myth of Darwin's deathbed recantation is frowned upon by real creationists. You overestimate Darwin's powers. He could not, just with a few words, change the way the world is (neither could Galileo, who really did recant)
Using both arguments makes you look stupid and uneducated, even creationists think you should try to avoid this in public. Stop watching those programs where the ultimate proof of god is a banana.

Answer 8

Darwin never recanted. The Lady Hope story has been proven wrong (it turns out she was in Australia at the time of Darwin's death).

Besides, even if Darwin did recant -- who cares? The evidence says he was right, even if he had recanted it.

Einstein, for example, expressed famously, "God does not play dice," refering to his belief that quantum randomness was not, in fact, random. The local hidden variables hypothesis was proven wrong, and that indeed, "God plays dice."

Do you wish to throw out all of Relativity because Einstein made some mistakes?

Besides, you're really fighting the wrong term.

The observed fact of Evolution is described by the Theory of Natural Selection.

This is the same as:
The observed fact of Gravity is described by the Theory of Relativity (a theory known to be wrong - it's incompatible with quantum gravity).

The observed fact of Infectious Disease is described by the Germ Theory.

The observed fact of Nuclear Reactions is described by Nuclear Theory.


So... shall we dispense with all of modern medicine because it's based on a 'theory'? Dispense with all modern communication technology because it's based on a 'theory'?

---------------

angeltress:

You DO realize that most of the quotes you provided are in excess of 40 years old? Do you have any idea of the significant fossil discoveries made just in the past 20 years?

In science, a quote older than 10 years is probably too old for anything more than historical interest.

------

erin c:

HUH?! Relativity isn't about Gravity?!

That's EXACTLY what it's about. It's the geometric analysis of the deformation of spacetime by mass (aka: gravity) and the interconnection between light speed, geodesics, spacetime, and the concept of the universal 'instant'.

Einstein convicted Newton of being wrong. Newton's Laws (law: an equation that describes the interaction between agents, not a 'proven theory') were shown to be false by Mercury's precession, Einstein convicted the "Laws" by explaining why Newton's Laws didn't account for the missing 88 arcseconds.

Answer 9

Of course it's a theory.

What do you mean "still" a theory. Theories don't turn into facts, pal. Theories remain theories and theories are based on facts (observations of natural phenomena). Theories are explanations, and explanations aren't facts. The more facts there are to back up a particular explanation (theory), the stronger it is. Theories don't become facts, they become stronger theories.

Where was this meeting of scientists where they found the evidence for the theory of evolution "wanting"? When was it?

Answer 10

Facts or be quiet. When? 'not so long ago', who? 'many scientists' where?

Darwin did NOT say his theory was incorrect. It is not false.

Science is a fluid process. When a new process is discovered, its faults and weaknesses are laid bare so that others may come in and try to explain them.

Religion is a static, dogmatic ritualistic bunch of fantasy that begins and ends with belief in imaginary creatures and thats its sheep refuse to question in way, shape or form.

I know what makes more sense to me.

Answer 11

Because there is overwhelming evidence that it is a fact. Museums across the world say that chimps have 98% the same DNA as human beings. However, there is that 2%. I think it's true, but it may not be. Even in my fourth grade class there's an argument. However, when you think about it, what's the other argument? If it's that we were created, what about us that are Hindu? Or Buddhist? Or Athiests? (They may have views different than you, but they aren't messengers of the Devil.)