When did evolution become a fact and not a theory?

Question

I'm talking about the evolution from simple molecules to man - when we learned about evolution in biology this was always taught as the theory of evolution, but now, 10 years later people are arguing saying it is a fact and others saying its a theory...

I looked up the scientific definition of "fact" on Wikipedia and here's what it said:
"In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts."

Now I know that no scientist (or anyone) has observed the evolution of man from molecules (no one can survive that long), however we do have fossils of many animals that once existed that look similar to one another.
So the facts are the existence of these fossils that look similar, and the theory to explain these facts is that they evolved from one another.

Thats my opinion, for those who believe that molecules to man evolution is a fact, could you point out the error in my logic? Thanks

I dont want to get in a debate about evolution or creation, I'm just curious about your opinion and the logic behind it

Answer 1

As I teach in my Biological Anthropology class - Evolution is both fact and theory - and you have already been provided with excellent examples of both by various previous answers.

On the fact side - To put it simply - the fossil record and our own observations over the last several hundred years have shown that evolution is taking place - it is a fact - species either change or die out - dinosaurs are gone - mammals that existed during the time of dinosaurs no longer exist, but their descendants have evolved into many modern forms.

With regard to theory - it is an attempt to explain the observed facts in a way that best fits the available data. A To stand up as a scientific theory it must be tested and not proved false. specific hypotheses are put forward to test a theory - and they are examined to determine if the theory holds up. in some cases a specific hypothesis may not hold, but that does not negate the whole theory - you simply reconsider the hypothesis - present another alternative, test that and continue the process. If a major flaw was to be found (i.e. a dinosaur fossil with a human fossil in his mouth) then the theory would have to be reconsidered, and possibly rejected. So far this has not happened.

Answer 2

Facts are observations of natural events. Theories are used to explain the facts. Some theories are more credible than others. The theory of evolution is more credible than the belief in intelligent design because ID or creationism have very little in the way of observations which support them.

Some people say that evolution is "only a theory". That's like saying a Corvette is only a car. In scientific terms, a theory has undergone quite a lot of testing before reaching this status. When a scientist makes an observation he or she may create several hypotheses to describe the observed facts. After rigorous testing by multiple observers, the hypothesis may be elevated to "theory-hood" when the scientific community is fairly certain that it is true.

Answer 3

I find it very interesting to note that in today's world with our freedom of speak and the like that it's common now to watch programs and Science books that "Blurr the lines" so to speak. I simply think it's to the worlds enrichment that more often than not we lean towards the notion of Theory as of supposed to Fact. Theory leaves the door open, that Facts shuts. I just recently had the opportunity to sit down and watch the show "Cosmos" I had just finished reading a wonderful magazine National Geographic had produced about the galaxies and all the ground breaking discoveries Science is making in the field of Astronomy, It was mesmerizing. While watching ' Cosmos" I noticed that many of the Theories talked about in the magazine were expressed as Facts in the show "Cosmos", National Geographic gave some awesome theory's about how the Moon "could" of been formed it also noted that the theory's were all still being tested. In "Cosmos" they simply described in a rather factual way "exactly how" the Moon formed. Having just read the article I knew that the Scientific community only has theories on the formation of the Moon, But my concern is that to someone who didn't know that this was only a theory could conclude it was a Fact. Someone being presented information as fact has a closed outlook on something like that.
FACT: The sun will rise in the morning ,
FACT: Humans Die
FACT : the president is currently OBAMA
FACT: Teens in schools are being taught Evolution is a FACT.
Theory: Teens being taught Evolution as a Fact might one day have a closed mind to other Idea's.
Given It's complexity wouldn't it just be smarter to leave this door open.

Answer 4

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must:
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

Answer 5

It is not a fact, and never has been. Evolution is still a theory. People have the right to believe in that theory, but I don't think they should discount those who disagree with it. It is, of course, non-verifiable.

As far as how long evolution has been considered fact, I would argue that the 1960s (when supreme court cases ruled that creationism could no longer be taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution) was when people generally ceased to percieve evolution as a theory and began to percieve it as fact.

Answer 6

The scientific definition of "theory" is what you should concerning yourself with. A theory in science is not a guess like it is in common english usage. To quote the Wikipedia as you did:

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

Fact and theory don't work in opposition by the scientific definition.

A couple samples (of many) of theories that you may have heard of that are so prevelant and accepted that they are considered "facts" to normal people.

The theory of Plate Techtonics: Describing the movement of the "plates" of the earths crust that move and create mountains/volcanoes etc.
The theory of Special Relativity: Describing (among other things) the movement of the planets around the sun.
The theory of General Relativity: Describing (among other things) gravity.
and of course,
The theory of Evolution: Describing the process of natural selection.

Yes, I'm sure there are some of you here that belive that the jury is still out on the heliocentrism but for the VAST majority of people it's a no brainer. The evidence is in. If you want to deny the millions of examples of evolution ranging from verifiable cell mutation to fossil evidence to speciation and more feel free to do so but please bear in mind that it may make you look silly.

Answer 7

Evolution itself is a fact, much like gravity is a fact. You drop a pencil, the pencil falls. We _know_ evolution happens, due to watching short-lived life forms like bacteria, or from looking at the fossil record as you said.

A theory, in science, is an explanation of the facts, like you said. So the theory here would be how, exactly, evolution works. We've got a bit worked out, but we're still working on it. For instance, do species tend to slowly evolve, or do they change in a relatively short period of time? This is sort of like how we're not really sure what causes gravity, even though we know about the terminal velocity and all those equations, except we know what causes evolution, but just not necessarily all of the equations for it.

Answer 8

The 23 answers so far show a remarkable number of thoughtful and honest descriptions of "evolution". I enjoyed reading them all.

However, if any of the readers want to dispel "theory" and produce "facts", then, as a doctor may I give you just two "facts" which surprised me when I first SAW them with my own eyes:

(1) In Anatomy, when we are disecting the human eye we found a growth at the anterior aspect of the inner sulcus. By pulling on this with our forceps we could easily extend this tissue distally but not entirely across the eye since it was not fully exendable.
In the texts and from our instructors it was generally agreed that this tissue was the vestigal remains of a THIRD eyelid. Certainly one would agree there is no other apparent use for this membrane.
So, if you are willing to accept this known fact then I can only ask any doubtors " why would a human require a third eyelid unless it was a remnant of an organ required earlier in our evolution, perhaps under water?" Each of us can ponder this fact.

(2) I spent only three weeks in the study of embryology I believe, at least some old notes show the references to which I am now referring. The human embroyos whch were cut in thin slices so that we could examine them under a microscope and in those about 15 days old or perhaps a little older we could defintely see the presence of "gill slits", which are organs that allow water to pass through them and extract oxygen it does so.

We were all quite surprised to see these gill slits which of course become less and less apparent as the embryo grows and until none are seen in a foetus. So, again, I would simply ask the doiubtors, "why would a human child in the early development require "gill slits" which are only needed by creatures who live in the oceans?

There are many many other things I saw with my own eyes and therefore became "facts" to me.

However, I think some folks do not wish to accept any belief except what their parents or their pastor tells them. For example one could place the slides and evidence of a hundred examples of what I have mentioned, in the hand of people like Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggert or maybe even woinderful men like Billy Graham and they would just NOT believe it, or perhaps choose NOT to even look at it.

Instead they would bless you and say " Please don't confuse me with the FACTS, My mind is made up.

Answer 9

It's considered fact by some that feel it is the most logical of any explanation brought forth to answer man's existence on earth. Man evolved with a mental capability limited to about his own lifetime, so it is extremely difficult for any individual to try and mentally visualize all the time that evolution has had to (through very tiny gradual changes) reach the point that we are today.

Evolution, I feel, is a fact that can be very clearly observed in organisms with short lifespans such as bacteria, over time a colony of bacteria can be observed mutating, forming new strains, and becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. The fact that all this change can occur in just a few hundred generations of bacteria are a clear indicator that evolution is a sound and scientifically feasible explanation to man's current situation. If you'd like more examples I suggest reading the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins which is a fantastic view on the evolutionary perspective.

Answer 10

Many scientists think it is smart to say it is just a theory. That is like saying that the Earth is not flat is a theory. You have to come up with bizarre scenarios like the matrix movie or believe our life is a dream to deny it. It sounds to me like you know where the only possible question lies but it is not a huge mystery. The only gap would be the first probably 100 million years or whatever it took to get to the point of the most primitive life on Earth. I don't have any problem believing that a complex molecule could form on Earth that was able to reproduce itself and eventually evolve into primitive life. Many of the so call experts on intelligent design say that DNA cannot spontaneously generate but it would be stupid to assume that it probably did. More likely, far more primitive systems existed that evolved into systems using something similar to RNA for enzymes and it was eventually used as a code to create proteins out of. It didn't start out complicated. I notice that most of the Intelligent Design people aren't suggesting that God created primitive bacteria 4 billion years ago so I don't know what the actual point of that argument is.

We have direct evidence of evolution from bacteria to man. Before that all we have is theory about how it happened. The extreme complexity of the chemistry is not a reasonable argument that it didn't occur in my opinion.