Should religious theists have to learn what the word Theory means before they try and discredit Evolution?

Question

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time.

Answer 1

This is quite interesting; I am both a science major and a
religious theist, so I felt the urge to attempt a response.

According to Wikipedia, "people often use the word theory
to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation.....
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation.....
capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise
falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that *for scientists* (emphasis mine) "theory" and "fact"
do not necessarily stand in opposition."

This however, opens up another proverbial Pandora's box.....
who is correct in how they interpret that word? People or
scientists? What if the scientists are incorrect in their
equation, experimentation, or if, as Wikipedia suggests
occurs (and we all know it does at times) that those theories
are based on empirical evidence that has been falsified?
Or if as humans, we are just not advanced enough to grasp
the entire "theory" so we misinterpret it?

Does this give the scientific community the right to hold their
valued "theories" over the beliefs of those who hold that their
evidence points to intelligent design?

Due to his pointing out the law of gravity, which he contends
can also be a theory in a general sense......some interesting
articles online about his statement that "The law of gravity
is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is
presumed to be true all over the universe and all through
time"---apparently some researchers then (if logic prevails)
are not of our universe nor exist within our concept of time....
because there are "Challenges to the Law of Gravity"--(http:astronomy.swin.edu.au?MOND/----as well
as an "Alternative theory of gravity"---(www.physorg.com),
and one more that was interesting reading---at www.bookpump.com/upb/pdf-b/1126018b.pdf

Science as well as religion are interesting, informative,
exciting.......why do some people feel it must always be
at odds one with the other?

For quite a number of years, people said that the stories
in the Holy Bible could NOT possibly be true. No evidence....
they were myth stories, passed down from ages past......
archeological digs now prove many of the stories are based
on factual information.

In that case, science proved to be a witness to a religious
Holy Book that had been put through the fire as if it were
nothing more than fairy tales.

I do believe as time goes on that science is going to prove
even more that what we know as reality is due to intelligent
design. We do not have to understand it to make it so.
As humans, with our egos, some of us choose to only believe
what we *feel* we can prove----but in time, someone else
comes along with another theory to displace the initial one....
and there are many in various scientific fields that do not
agree with the theories of one another.....it isn't just the
religious theists who question whether a scientific "theory"
is based on fact or if it is just what a scientist wants to believe (and
is willing to do what he believes needs to be done to advance his theory).
Life is interesting and much more fun when we have a mix
of different thoughts, beliefs and interpretations.
When science does produce a factual piece of evidence,
it is an amazing foundation for the advance of knowledge....
but when they attempt to distort or twist it and force it down
the proverbial throats of those who wish to follow truths
of their own.....it is obnoxious and a not very professional
exercise. Our energies could be put to far better use, wouldn't you agree?
There are many religious theists who are scientists, just
as there are scientists who are agnostic or atheist.......
the bottom line is truthfulness in all that is theorized....as
well as logic.
If Evolution were a truth, not a theory.....there are many
things that just do not fit within the framework of what is
explained as evolution......however, if a man wishes to
believe he was once an animal, I have no problem with
that. I just do not believe my own family line descended
from same!

Doris
[e-mail]

Answer 2

There is no such thing as a true scientific law because if any one piece of data contradicts that said law then it is debunked. Everything is theory because everything is constantly tested.

Some theories are accepted more than others but it is still a theory and some terminology is adapted to make it easier for the masses to understand. If tomorrow some scientist drops a rock and it suddenly floats in the air then law of gravity would be proven to be false and a new theory would have to be created.

Answer 3

Context.
This is the new word of the day.

Why is this, the new word of the day?

Because in conversation the same word may have different meanings depending on the way it is being used. When you say "Oh that’s just a theory." The context of the word is that its not reliable, that its just someone's ideas that have been stamped on as facts. That explains one of the definitions in the dictionary. That accounts for 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. The more scientific approach to what a theory means is: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. An example of that is the theory of relativity. The next one is: 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. Fortunately American Heritage dictionary already provided an example of the context of that meaning. Next one is: 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. For it to be used in this context you can only be speaking about mathematics. Next one is: 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. An example of this is "My theory is that people have a good heart." That is how that definition applies. Next one is: 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. Fortunately American Heritage once again came to the rescue and provided an example.

Those are the six definitions given to the word theory; each has its use within its own context. The 6th definition is the word theists use to try to discredit the theory of evolution. The 1st definition is the scientific use of the word theory, which if you want to stay within the context of the word where the theory of evolution fits, similar to the theory of relativity provided in the example above. Are either of those acceptable as 100% knowledge (otherwise known as an axiom)? No, they are the best reasoning with scientific and logical backing that we have so far. They do help further our knowledge base. Now, using the word out of context does not disprove anything. That is where the theists you see on here get things wrong. You cannot pick and choose which context the word theory fits in. Evolution is a scientific theory and thus must be used within its fitting definition as a scientific theory. If they believe that this scientific theory is wrong then they should delve into showing in a scientific way that it is wrong and their creationism is right. Until they can do so in a scientific way the theory of evolution will remain a good source of explaining the living world around us.

Lastly to answer your question should they be taught what it means? They all have dictionaries and have the potential to know what it means, they needs to be taught how to use the word within the context of how they are using it, and that by using the word out of context they cannot make their case to disprove something else entirely. If your case against evolution hinges on saying that evolution is wrong because a theory is unreliable, then your just using the word incorrectly. I know everyone will get tired of hearing that over and over again but it is important for people to understand that.

Answer 4

I hear what you're saying cbg, however I'm of the mind as I age that both evolution and intelligent design can co-exist in my world, they are not mutually exclusive.

Imho, we're not exactly sure how the world is , if you're a literalist as are most bible based christians it says that God made the world in 7 days, but how long is one of God's days? It surely isn't 24 hours like our day, for all we know God's days could be thousands if not millions of years.

And in that time what he originally made had to adapt and evolve as conditions changed, ice ages, floods, over heating what have you.

And how do we know God or the Creator didn't create other parts of the universe as well as our part, we're just playing into someone's interpretation or dogma around the bible because at the time it was written or formalized education wasn't as advanced.

So yeah everyone hate me because I'm happily on the fence with this one. True there may have been a big bang but who/what created the conditions for a big bang.

Answer 5

You presuppose:

a) That "religious theists" all wish to discredit evolution. I don't - I fully accept that this is how life on Earth diversified and resulted in the biosphere today.

b) That "religious theists" all misunderstand what a "theory" is. There are certainly many who accept that evolution is a scientific theory with evidence that makes it plausible - they simply don't accept that the consensus conclusion of that data is the correct conclusion. Whether they are right in believing that or not is not germaine to your question.

Tootsie: Neanderthal DNA has been "proven" to being nothing of the sort. You've infered the wrong thing from newspaper headlines. Neanderthals WERE human - just a different sort of human, one that split off from our ancestral line around the time of Homo Heidelbergensis, an advanced near-modern hominid that had already learned to speak, control fire, make huts, and bury their dead.

Answer 6

You would think so, yes, but the Fundies, the loudest opponent of Darwin's Origin of the Species and the path it has taken in the wake of research and a deeper understanding of evolution, are quite at home awash in ignorance. The scientific definition of 'theory' does not, could not, will not break through a narrow, closed mind. Rare is the day here that a Fundy doesn't tell us that he or she was not the descendant of, now get this, monkeys. It would be funny as all get-out if it weren't so sad. Ignorance in itself isn't a crime, to which I can personally attest, but not knowing one is ignorant, that one doesn't know the workings of a particular fact, is an altogether pathetic waste of the human brain.

Answer 7

And they have the absolute gall to call it the Theory of Creationism and the Theory of Intelligent Design. That right there is academic fraud, and an absolute nonsense.

I agree with SoleilNoir that the parlous state of the US education system will turn around and bite America one day. Did you know that Australian children get, on average 52 weeks more schooling before they graduate from high school than an American child? And if some of that time is spent learning fictions such as Creationism and Intelligent Design, then they are even further behind.

Answer 8

most people tend to equate " theory" with things that are imaginary or some explanation thats been cooked up. to them evolution theories must sound very bogus and imaginary indeed.
i believe in darwin's theory of evolution and to some extent the big bang theory too. i think perhaps the big bang happened and then the life forms evolved as darwin says.
but i do have a question which most non believers also have, and i would love to get some answers.
i accept that humans evolved from chimps. this seems to make a lot of sense. my question is, why we dont see any more animals evolving anoymore ?
i mean, has the evolution process stopped ? and if so why ?
or is it happening so slowly that we are not noticing it ?

Answer 9

There is no need to answer this question because you hit the nail on the head. Many of the religious types try to discredit the theory of evolution by attacking the scientists themselves (many scientists are religious people) by claiming the science is itself a religion, and by basically threatening anyone who purports a belief in the scientific theory of evolution with eternal damnation. There is no room, for some religious people, for intellectual discussion on scientific matters.

Answer 10

The fact that they don't understand science is why they believe what they do.

I mean, it's that simple. They will never be taken seriously, because they prove their own ignorance every time they try to make an argument.

There will never actually be a debate, because there are no arguments for the Creationists to use. They are either educated, or they're not Creationists. I just wish we could work a little harder on education in this country.