Is it time to clear up what a "scientific theory" is again..?

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.

There, now no more "..but it's only a theory.." remarks please..!!

Answer 1

yes there are, how is it that in your explaination of it's and suppositions, you still have the audacity to make the grand leap into certainty?
By your own admission, the NAS defines a "fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is 'true.'"

I love the insertion "scientists do not use the term that way".
Why not? Is it because to use a term in the grammatical intent would imply something other than the intended outcome?
Why all the hocus-pocus with language?
Is it because, through clever manipiulation of words you intend to overawe me with your intellect?
Sorry to disapoint you, I place little value on the unproven.
So, block me if you can not accept my opposing viewpoint,m but remember, If everything can be reduced to blocking those whom you disagree with, then how far are we fronm a society that is akin to Nazi Germany, or the AXIS Power Japan?

Answer 2

I believe in the Bible record. When Jesus was here He did not change the Genesis record. So it is not a big deal to me if it was not to Jesus. Whatever happened, I believe God guided this process.

Sciences's domain is to explore nature. God's domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind and the soul - and the mind must find away to embrace both realms.

Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world, and its tools when properly utilized can generate profound insights into material existence. But science is powerless to answer questions such as " Why did the universe come into being?" "What is the meaning of human existence?" " What happens after we die? "

Clearly evolution theory has been the 'source of great discomfort '; ) in religious community over past 150 years, and that resistance shows no signs of lessening. Yet believers would be well advised to look carefully at the overwhelming weight of scientific data supporting this view of relatedness of all living things, including ourselves. Given the strenght of the evidence, it is perplexing that so little progress in public acceptance has occured in the USA. Perhaps part of the prblem relates indeed to a simple misunderstanding of the word "theory'.

I found two alternative definitions for the word "theory"
a) a speculative or conjectural view of something
b) fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.:music theory, theory of equations.

It is this 2nd usage that scientists intend when they talk about evolutionary theory, as they mention gravitational theory or the germ theory of infectious disease. In this context, the word 'theory" is not intended to conveyun certainty; for that purpose a scientist would use the word " hypothesis".

Answer 3

One question, when was evolution given the title, a theory? Could you give us the year?...or was it always considered a theory from its beginning without the tried scientific proof?

Not disputing evolution here, but would like the info.

Answer 4

time is theoty...since futute doesn't exist, by the time you get there it's already the present.

You can't confirm something that has the advantage of time. example: I exist, is a truth. Now tell me why that statement won't be truth after 1000 years or in 1000 years ago? Evidence + logic = truth

Answer 5

Sorry, but you are asking people who believe in a magical Big Daddy in the Sky to understand concepts which have more than two syllables. I think your faith in their abilities has long since been proved to be misplaced. To those that do understand what a theory is, I meant no disrespect. To the others, I'm not worried about disrespecting you; I doubt you can understand the big words, like "syllables."

Answer 6

Good job, man. I know this is a Q & A site with no gatekeeping process whatsoever, but it's heartwarming to see someone whip out the hydrocortisine cream of basic education in response to the rash of people who forgot theirs.

Answer 7

I can only hope that some of the Christians here read this, but i suspect they won't. Good post.

Answer 8

YOU are not in the science section. Try and find it for a change.
Amazing...notice the thumbs down for the fact that scientific theory cannot find the science section.. and these are the ones calling anyone who believes in God, ignorant.

Answer 9

If you expect logic from creationists you are going to be disappointed.

Answer 10

I don't see any monkeys turning into people lately have you???