Another lesson for christians on "theory"..?

Question

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.


The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.


If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.


Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Answer 1

Most Christians got about two sentences into your question and picked up "The Bible in Pictures" instead.

Answer 2

I will make a conscious decision, that despite the insults hurled from yourself on people who have a different view trying to prompt narrow minded Christians with little background in the area to make angry replies and look to the world like they are intolerant and stupid, to not address your opinions and instead offer a reasonable explanation for why some people have a different point of view.

Everyone accepts that things change. Despite the backlash of some people about certain terms being used for description they still accept that everything changes over time. The problem I have with believing macro evolution is that there just is not sufficient evidence of it actually happening. There has been plenty of documented micro evolution but what you are describing above is a viewpoint just as valid as a view of creation. Both lack solid evidence that can be re-created in a lab. The difference is that creation does not try to claim that. For evolution (of the macro variety) to actually become a theory scientifically it would have to be tested in some way and it simply cannot because it would occur over millions of years. This holds the "theory" of macro evolution to actually being a hypotheses. People who want to push this idea lump it together with micro evolution by just saying evolution because micro evolution is an actual theory ( a tested framework for explaining a phenomenon). I fully believe in micro evolution and also fully believe in creation as the best explanation for not only how life came to be but also what the purpose of life is. Without this world-view I have a very hard time understanding human values and the structure of society. I also have a hard time understanding where everything came from. To reach my main point in this is that science can only explain what it can test and some people have taken science to try to prove what science just cannot prove.

Answer 3

It is very hard to prove theories in things such as biology because biology is so varied there are almost always exceptions which prevent biological theories from becoming laws. One example is the cell theory, however, viruses are an exception. As the first cell would have as well. So when people say ha, evolution is only a theory they should realize that it is so hard to make a law in the field of biology.

Answer 4

The word theory, in context of science and religion, ultimately does not mean proof. By your own definition then, the theory of God exists and does not imply uncertainty.

It may be that life appeared on earth more than 2 billion years ago, but your "fact" does not say who created this life.

Life forms indeed have changed, but does not explain who created this life.

The "fact" is, you cannot explain, even by a "coherent group of general propositions" how life got started. You can with science explain how life has changed and mutated but you cannot explain the initial spark.

The "theory" of God has alslo proved itself in practice, it has useful applications in all areas as well :)

But thanks for the "lesson" anyway.

Answer 5

I didn't see a question but I'm with you. At least theories about evolution make sense. Unlike the theists theories about a man in the sky with a stone book with everyones name on it. Sounds like Zues and his thunderbolts theory went out the window a long time ago. Get ready for the rest of the theist theories to go bybye in the same fashion. It is unavoidable.

Answer 6

Ok - evolution is a viable theory. I also belive in the Big Bang origin of the universe.

But the history of the universe, or life on earth, is not a religion topic - it's natural science.

Those who think evolution disproves Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or native American religions are simply misguided. Some of these misguided people are athiests trying to disprove religions - some of the misguided people are religious people trying to "defend their faith."

Both are fighting a battle over ground that is meaningless.

Answer 7

Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe could be as much as fifteen billion years old. this does not contradict the Genesis account of introduction. The Bible does not specify the quite age of “the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis a million:a million) technology isn't at odds with the Biblical text cloth. the genuine contradiction is, no longer between technology and the Bible, yet between technology and the comments of Christian Fundamentalists. Genesis does not coach that the universe, alongside with the earth and all residing issues on it, replaced into created in a short quantity of time interior the quite present day previous. extremely, aspects of the define in Genesis of the introduction of the universe and the visual charm of existence in the international harmonize with present day medical discoveries. The Genesis' account starts off with the Earth already created: then God defined how he arranged the Earth for human habitation.

Answer 8

Evolution occurs, this is a fact. But there are different kinds of evolution, amongst one is punctuated equilibria. This theory of evolution suggests that evolution occurs in sporadic bursts followed by no change. But Charles Darwin's theory has serious flaws in it. He mentioned it in a letter to his friend that several "links" were missing from that chain.

Answer 9

One thing you state to be a "fact" is not. Natural selection was Charles Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution, but it has not been supported well by the fossil evidence. It accounts for change within species, but not for the development of new species.

But as a Christian, thanks for the lesson. Here's a lesson for you: the word "Christian" should be capitalized.

Answer 10

fancy way of admitting a theory is not fact
comparing evolution theory to gravity? nice touch!
only, gravity is a contiuous fact and evolution is still just a theory.

Hey evolution guy? How does evolution explain the more than 2000 distinct languages and the various dialects within, not to mention the vastly different rules of grammar within those 1000's of languages?
Oh right, evolution has never even attempted this question that is reasonably adressed in the one book called the Bible.

Answer 11

Let'sTorque...

I have a question for you. Why are evolutionist--those who are supposed to be scientifically-minded--as evangelical as the creationists these days? Does it matter whose creation myth I believe? Frankly, I'm tired of this argument--both sides. If either side were so confident about their viewpoint, they wouldn't keep trying to push it off on others. Fact is, Faith is Faith--be that a faith in a higher intelligence or faith in a human system.