Evolution is just a "theory"?

Question

To most non-scientists a theory is just a guess or something that scientists want to be true even though there are no supporting facts. Few realize that a theory has survived the test of time and has yet to be proven incorrect. A theory is one step away from a law. Gravity is a theory, are we going to say it isn't true since it is a theory? I always see people on here saying evolution is just a "theory" so therefore it probably isn't true. Well if it is a theory in science, it has sufficient evidence supporting it. Not to mention, the creationist view is not even scientifical, so if you say evolution is "just" a theory, then creationism is just wishful thinking.

Anyway, I am just wondering why people say evolution is "just a theory" so therefore I won't believe it since it isn't "fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Uros I - You prove my point exactly. Creation is NOT a scientific theory.

mareer - there is evidence of evolution. You can't be serious?! There is scientific proof for evolution. If you read my question, you will see that a "theory" in science has evidence backing it up and is not something someone just made up. Religion has nothing to support it. And how can evolution be religion? Wow....

Answer 1

"Evolution does not explain the first life forms or the creation of the universe. "

So? It does not explain how to play chess, either.

ADDENDUM

"a theory is merely a hypothesis until it is supported with evidence."

Umm, not quite. Even after the evidence, it is still a theory. A "theory" is MUCH more than a "hypothesis" at the start.

"I think some of you are confused...

Evolution is still a theory. It was one of Darwin's ideas which a lot of people now believe as fact without any scientific proof.
[...]
Student of science and religion "

Not a very good one, obviously! Honey, you are the confused one. ROTFLMAO!!!

Answer 2

That's exactly the point. There is no way to reproduce this experiment in a laboratory. Bacteria do evolve into new species. Of course, they just claim this is microevolution as well. Observable evolution of entirely new species isn't even limited to just bacteria. An entirely new species of mosquito has already evolved in London's subway system (1) It cannot even interbreed with any pre-existing species of mosquito. What the creationists want is a mammal that evolves into an entirely new species and can be demonstrated doing this in a laboratory. It only happens in the time frame of scientific observation with mosquitos and bacteria. Mammals take too long to reproduce. Of course, these claims don't really have anything to do with scientific argument. Creationism is a flat Earth theory as far as scientists are concerned. The target audience for these claims is the general public with limited knowledge about the subject, not the scientific community.

Answer 3

Well, it is just a theory... Unlike the theory of gravity, which you can whitness every day, the evolution theory has various gaps in it and can never be prooved either right or wrong - just like the creation theory. Anyhow, how come that we always like to think that it's better for a theory to be scientific, and refuse to be aware that science, just like religion, just like simple belief, has had its flaws and mistakes? Why are we so sure that this is the only time in history (by 'this', I mean the 'science era') when there will not be mistakes, or when that isn't even possible? We always think we know some facts and that we know what is true and what isn't, and history always disputes this. I myself can only aknowledge the heroic efforts of human thought on those vast fields of what we don't know (and, possibly never will), and can not understand how very few people refuse to realise actually how great are those efforts. One thing I'm sure about: ages will pass before we can say that we really 'know' some things, and it's only beautifull that so many men and women gave their best to provide answers in a search which is the only thing that really bonds us all as humans.

I didn't intent to proove or disproove anything, but, of course that creationism is not a scientific theory... Nor is evolution a ground for a religion that will inspire and (sometimes) make people happy, and that will last for so many thousands of years. But, it would be nice if you would at least take into consideration other things I've said, the whole context - I believe in evolution and I believe in God, and I also do not wish to spend my life thinking which one came first. Please notice that I'm not insulting you or in any way disputing your beliefs - just let me know if what I've written makes any sence to you.

Answer 4

Evolution is not a science Evolution defies mathematical probability. Evolution defies laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics.)

It’s a hypothesis that has never been proved.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth.

Answer 5

I think the answer is that people who try to attack evolution just don't have enough scientific training to know what a theory actually is. If they did, they woudn't be arguing what they're arguing to begin with. It's much easier to either look the other way, or try to twist around terminology to make your opponent sound bad than it is to actually understand what your opponent says.

sugrnspyce4,

Your so called "arguments" are talking points straight out of a Kent Hovind seminar. Please let me give you some advice, not as an evolutionist, creationist or otherwise, but just as a human being. Kent Hovind is a quack and listening to him is going to get you into a lot of trouble. He has no clue what he's talking about. The "Answers in Genesis" organization, a group that supports creation science and argues against evolution, has denounced Mr. Hovind for using arguments that are outdated and untrustworthy. They have issued official statements recommending that creation scientists distance themselves from him if they want to remain credible. He is shunned by the very people who's cause you support. If you really believe creation and distrust evolution, as seems to be the case, you need to distance yourself from this guy as much as you can. His arguments are completely ridiculous and I don't want you to be taken into his camp and ridiculed. I'm not going to go through them one by one in this response, but if you want to undestand why these arguments are wrong, please e-mail me and I will be happy to explain to you what he's doing. In all seriousness, I do this as a favor to you and not to try to shoot you down.

rb_1989226,

I just read your rebutall to the insane Kent Hovind arguments quoted by sugrnspyce4. Very thorough job. It takes a lot of patience to thoughtfully analyze arguments that have up to 5 logical fallacies in a single statement. I applaud your efforts.

Answer 6

A theory must change in light of other evidence. In most cases, the theory was wrong and was revised. So in a sense, it is the best guess that science can give. If a shred of evidence contradicts the theory, then it must be reworked.

Answer 7

Read the book entitled, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest"

That ought to clear you up if you are really seroius about getting an answer to your question.

Answer 8

Actually, in science, a "theory" is HIGHER than a law. Here's how it works. Take, for example, gravity. The law of gravity tells you that if you hold a rock in your hand, and let go, it will fall. The theory of gravity will now explain to you WHY the rock fell. The "law" tells you what will happen. The THEORY tells you WHY. See...in evolutionary science, "theory" is actually a step higher than law.
When creationists use the word "theory", they are thinking in their minds what scientists refer to as a hypothesis. They either don't understand the difference, or they do understand, but refuse to acknowledge it because they prefer to bend things to suit their purposes. In science, the word "theory" is as close to they come to the word "fact".

Answer 9

Evolution inside a species does exist and is a fact.

Evolution from one species to another is just a theory that can never be proven no matter how much evidence is found to support it and is not true science but a philosophical argument.

Why? Because it can not be tested. A theory needs to be tested to be worked with which means it needs controlled, repeatable and observable experiments. Cross species evolution as the explanation for life on Earth is not science because no one was there to observe it and nobody can recreate what happened. This means that nobody knows what happened and nobody can know what happened but this is the opinion of scientists who have no way of proving it one way or the other and have no more evidence for it than creationists have for their theories which also can not be proven, but at least we say that you have to take it on faith instead of dressing it up as the "proven way".

Answer 10

the amusing thing on top of that is that for all intents and purposes relgion/god is just a theory too... there is a ton of evidence to support the theory of evolution (religion has none)

and catherine - you're incorrect... theory is below law... theory says "we believe its true heres why"... law says "we KNOW its right, heres how"