Do you think christians/creationists need to be constantly reminded of 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 and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

So no more "..but it's only a theory.." arguments please..!

And please enlighten those in your flock who aren't aware of this.
You wouldn't want to mislead them now would you..?

Yep..! Their denial reflex is working properly.

The main post above should be cut and pasted here on R&S numerous times every day, imo..
Feel free oh learned ones..

Answer 1

The problem is more complicated than that. Most Christians don't have much of a problem with evolution until the assertion is made that evolution is not guided. To say either that it is guided or unguided crosses the boundary into religion or philosophy.

Science needs a clear way to state the theory so that it neither implies guidance nor an absence of guidance.

Answer 2

Evolution is *both* a fact AND a theory. The problem is that the word "evolution" is commonly used both as a shorthand for "the process of evolution" and "the theory of evolution". The first is a fact, the latter is the theory that explains that fact.

The *process* of evolution is a fact. Things evolve. Not even creationists dispute this fact (although they may refuse to call that process "evolution" for fear of conceding something ... and instead insist that the word "adaptation" or microevolution" be used to describe the process). To understand the *fact* of the process of evolution, you just need to know the meaning of the term "the process of evolution". This basically just means "change in an organism at the population level". This can be observed *directly* both in nature and in the laboratory. It can be *induced* (by selective breeding). It can be *measured* (the formal definition is "the change in allele frequency in a population).

The *theory* of evolution is the theory that explains the above *fact*. It explains 2 things: (1) how that "change at the population level" occurs in nature (natural selection); and (2) how that same process explains the existence of all species on earth by way of common ancestry traceable to the first life form. (The theory of evolution does not go further, and attempt to explain the origins of life ... that is a separate question, and NOT explainable by the process of evolution ... i.e. by "change at the population level.")

But to answer your question, not all creationists need to be reminded of the meaning of theory ... just those who use the phrase "just a theory", or who put the word THEORY in bold or all-caps whenever talking about "the THEORY of evolution." These people evidently believe that the word "theory" is a diminisment, a lesser form of truth ... while in actuality, *everything* in science is a theory, and it doesn't get any *truer*.

Anybody who uses the phrase "just a theory" is immediately disqualified from saying anything of substance about science. They misunderstand even the *basics* of science, much less its details.

I have a basic description of the difference between a theory and a law: A theory *explains* something. A law *describes* something. I.e. a law is a single statement that describes phenomenon that appears to be true. A theory is a set of *many* statements (some of which may be laws), that explains a large body of phenomena.

And *that* is why a theory can never become a law, or a law can never become a theory.

Answer 3

If you were to make 3 columns. Place fact in the middle, the christian interpretation of that fact on the right, and the interpretation offerred by those who "believe" in evolution on the left. What you would see is those on the left reach over and blur the line between their interpretation and the fact. What you have here is 2 sides looking at the same thing and coming up with 2 very different conclusions. Kinda like looking at someone catching a pass in the end zone. You could possibly have hundreds of people leaping for joy for what they consider a touchdown and hundreds of people in a rage for what they consider an incomplete pass.
How can you call evolution fact. It's an interpretation. There is much evidence in our public science books that is untrue. Proven frauds years ago, yet here we are. Obviously, I don't believe in the evolution theory. However, I realize that evolution will be taught in our schools. The only thing that I would ask to change is this: Teach your interpretation leaving out anything that is disproven.

There is no need to lie.... Or is there?

Repost:
What fossil record? We are further away from proving evolution through the fossil record today than we were over 100yrs ago. There are no intermediary species. The only reason the idea of punctuated equilibrium is around is because the fossil record is so lacking.

Are you willing to look for the truth no matter where it leads you? Or are you willing to as long as it doesn't lead to special creation?

Answer 4

Evolution isn't even a theory because a theory has to be tested in the original conditions (which it can't because we don't know what they were) and after multiple experiments, the same results have to come about time and time again. A test tube does not equal original conditions and last time I checked, we have yet to create any organism, much less a universe, out of H or C or O2 or anything else alone much less see it evolve.

If everything evolved why did some stuff stay as amoeba; why did some apes stay apes; why have house cats looked the same since the times of the Egyptians; why did only a select group of a certain species "evolve" if evolution is true?

Evolution... what a joke.

Answer 5

Your statement is so convoluted, I am having difficulty following your thought. Creationists will never accept the accuracy of science. Evolution and godly creation are diametrically opposed. I can see no reason to accept any of the fairy tales presented by creationists to explain how the universe was created. Creationists have closed their minds to the possibility that any other explanation exists that accurately represents the process of evolution.
However, I believe there exist many people who espouse the creationist theory, really do believe that evolution is the truth. They will be seen as traitors. So, they keep quiet about the theory they support.

Answer 6

So now the theory of evolution is defined as genetic mutations occur. That is a far cry from previous definitions of evolution which constantly changes when it is disproved.

The facts are evolution theory is as much science as astrology and alchemy but to those that believe in evolution it becomes a religion. to reasonable people it is nonsense.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 7

I noticed that Richard Dawkins has given up on getting this point across, and now speaks of "The *fact* of Evolution".

CD

Answer 8

You're wasting your time trying to convince people who clearly don't want to change. If they want to believe a 2000-year old book over everything else, let them.

Of course you then get the normal excuses - bias by scientists, falsifying evidence.

It's time for creationists to either put up some evidence that stands up to scrutiny or shut up!

Answer 9

Evolutionist have nothing but a big mouth and a big hammer. There is nothing to show that these fossils were not God's handiwork -- in fact, all logic and mathematical probability calculations in regard to the DNA proves that all you have is a bag of wind.

Try looking at a different perspective:
http://bythebible.page.tl/Creation.htm

Just skip the first two paragraphs, but you will see that all your arguments based on eons and such have no superiority to the Bible.

Answer 10

Yes. I'm sick of hearing, "But it's only a theory!"

Yeah. A theory. Kind of like gravity.