One of the major problems with the so-called theory of evolution is that the details depend on who is telling?

Question

the story. Those details that become commonly accepted as “facts” are often changed in light of more recent discoveries. This has happened on numerous occasions, with little notice that the supposed prior facts were not facts at all. In other words, there is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations and methods for interpretation of observational facts so that they fit into the philosophy of naturalism.

Who said this:
Dr. Wanser is professor of physics, California State University, Fullerton. He holds a B.A. in physics from California State University, an M.A. in physics from the University of California, Irvine, and a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Wanser, who specializes in novel and ultrasensitive optical fiber sensor devices, components and techniques, has published over 30 refereed and 18 other technical papers and holds seven U.S. patents. In 1996 he was the recipient of the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Outstanding Research Award.

Answer 1

That's why they call it a theory, along with the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Magnetism.

I have a feeling that some of that was taken out of context, and when one scientist says what he believes to be the truth, does that make EVERY OTHER scientist in the world who studies/thinks/KNOWS evolution is a factual THEORY wrong?

If one Christian admits god didn't create the world does that make it so?

Answer 2

First, how is a revision of scientific inference a "major problem"? That is the point of scientific inquiry.

Very few scientists (I would argue no "true" scientist) would claim that a scientific theory is a "fact". Theories are hypotheses (educated conjectures) that have been validated by observation. However, when observations come along that IN-validate the theory, scientists strive to revise it or, in extreme cases, discard it and start over.

I would never put any stock into a scientist that claims to "know everything" even about their sub-field. Period.

Not to feed the impropriety of your statements but you are correct that there is never one "theory" about a subject. Theories are a way to make sense of the world around us. They constantly get revisions - most small, some not so small, some downright huge. They are NOT, however, speculations. "Methods of interpretation of observational facts"? Yes. With a particular bias toward naturalism? Hmm... that's harder but I'd say that it's not a personal bias but rather a bias of the scientific method which seeks a "natural" mechanism for events and phenomena.

Frankly, I am growing weary of the tired debate of science vs religion. The two are not mutually exclusive and most educated people on both sides of the debate understand this.

Don't mark me down as an extreme "naturalist" or anything. If you look at my previous answers I question scientists' claims long and hard that their observations and inferences are not fundamentally based on assumptions in an axiomatic system.

However, to question the methodology of science and what it stands for - there's no real reason for that.

Edit: Oh, and I hold a BS in physics and an MS in astrophysics. And let me tell you: a degree in physics or a related field does NOT in and of itself make one qualified to discuss evolutionary theory. Studying the field itself is what does this. I am not an expert in the theory of evolution but my studies do indicate to me that it is grounded in solid scientific method.

Answer 3

Too bad the good doctor had so little understanding of the philosophy of science.

This happens in every science. Ideas are put forward, evidence for them and against them is gathered, it appears that they are well supported and thus they are commonly accepted. But science doesn't stop there, it keeps testing everything, it keeps gathering evidence. And as each new piece of evidence is gathered the previously accepted models are tested and re-evaluated.

Because science continues to gather new evidence, our views change over time. None of the changes in evolutionary theory have in any way challenged the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution. Instead, just as in physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology, etc., accepted ideas are challenged, found wanting, and replaced with new ideas which are provisionally accepted pending further study. Evolution fits with every other science in this process.

Answer 4

Yes, that's the best thing about evolution--it's self-correcting, like any other scientific discipline. Much better than religion where some kooky prophet from the Bronze Age makes silly assertions that are out of touch with reality, and True Believers stubbornly stick to those beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And, yes, there is ONE theory of evolution. Scientists may quibble over the details, but overwhelming majority of scientists do accept evolution--try to find even one reputable scientific journal that pushes creationism...

Answer 5

Yes sometime science does change. but none of it comes any closer to proving your crazy book right. Actually the more science advances the more it proves evolution. See when some thing is a theory it changes until it becomes proved fact. It evolves.

An interesting note on this. When Newton claimed we were related to apes he had no real proof just observations. Now we have DNA evidence to back it up. It only got more true.

Answer 6

well gee, observations were made and the theories were changed where necessary to match the observations, although you leave out the part where some things have only been confirmed as new evidence has come in, for example common descent. it's almost like a process i vaguely recall, now what was it called, oh yeah the scientific method.

i'm sure Dr. Wanser is a competent physicist in his area of expertise but he has somehow not noticed or ignored the fact that very similar things have happened to theories in physics over the years.

Answer 7

Dr K Wanser is a physicist involved in optics and condensed matter physics. Exactly who I would ask about evolution or biology(sarcasm). He is also a young earth creationist.
I suppose his support for creationism would likely shift if we started to attack his science as being against biblical creation.
Anyhow, if I want to know about physics I ask physicists.
If I want to know about evolution I ask biologists.

Answer 8

I see your point, but I'm pretty sure that's precisely what makes it a theory (i.e. a systematic conglomeration of hypotheses). And you're absolutely right- there are many different and splintered theories of evolution. Again, I'm pretty sure that's what makes it science- people trying to make sense out of what evidence they have, and adapting their ideas in the face of new evidence (instead of, say, clinging dogmatically to a particular point of view).

Hoping that's helpful, guessing it isn't. Best wishes.

Answer 9

The process of 'Natural Selection' is quite clear and is the theory accepted by most scientist.

Answer 10

Truth about scientific evolution is that it cannot prove itself scientificaly. kind of like false religions that keep changing there rules