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.'"
2007-06-14 23:31:44 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
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.
There, now no more "..but it's only a theory.." remarks please..!!
2007-06-14 23:32:19 · update #1
To those having even average intelligence and above, you're preaching to the choir (but keep up the good work!).
As for those who are doltish enough to believe the lying tripe and propaganda-swill of the RRR Cult... count on the likelihood that most of them will never outgrow the cluelessness with which they've been brainwashed for decades by unscrupulous and greedy leaders who've made $billion$ from keeping them scare-tactic conned. There's no better cash cow than an ignorant person who's been conned into thinking he needs to kick in regular contributions to those con men/thieves. Ever notice the empires of such as the late Jerry Falwell (who started it all, may his name be forever cursed!), James Dobson (of "Focus on the Family"), and D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries)?
On the other side of the coin it IS possible to be an HONEST and truthful evengelist who pushes no agendas of bigotry, but instead has been true to spreading the Gospel to all who seek and will accept it: Billy Graham.
(Please pray for Billy, that he has Divine comfort as he deals with the tragedy of having just lost his beloved wife of 63 years, Ruth, to cancer yesterday -- June 14th.)
Billy Graham -- a TRUE Christian model for the ages.
2007-06-14 23:54:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can one infer a genetic mutation? How can one look at the fossil record and assume there are links between samples? There is no evidence to support such a hypothesis, but even if there were, this still does not explain where the first organism came from. The scientific impossibility of spontaneous generation of life is well documented.
2007-06-14 23:37:43 · answer #2 · answered by capitalctu 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I think people use scientific theories to prove the ground on which they stand.
The religious use science theories to prove a God exist, while others use theories to prove a God doesn't. Theories are only possible explanations of the world we live in and how it came to be.
If there were solid proofs to theories...they wouldn't be theories.
2007-06-14 23:41:57 · answer #3 · answered by Shauna O 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it seems there are a great deal many people who need to be cleared up on this.
Edit: Capitalctu you don't know what the **** you're talking about.
2007-06-14 23:37:28 · answer #4 · answered by Barry 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It won't enter, not even if you hammer it in, fundies heads are harder that diamonds.
2007-06-14 23:37:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Little use. This forum has no memory.
2007-06-14 23:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by Bokito 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋