Why do people say evolution is a fact when it's just a theory?

Question

In science things are only facts once they are proven.

For example, general relativity is a fact, and that's why it isn't called the "Theory of Relativity."

It is a fact that limits converge in metric spaces, and that's why it's not called the "Theory of Limits."

It's also a fact that Nash equilibria are the best strategies for games, and that's why the branch of economics dealing with competitive strategies is not called "Game Theory."

When will you get it through your thick heads that theories are just somebody's wild guess, and not a set of propositions that are scientifically well-confirmed by empirical evidence.

I see five answerers who get what's going on and 6 stars. Does that mean I got a star from a creationist who liked my argument?

Answer 1

because they are narrow minded

Answer 2

It is a hoax. "but only when used in the context of a dog producing another dog for example. It has been observed in nature, and in laboratories that you can produce more breeds within a species. That makes 'evolution' a fact." That is a kind producing the same kind, which the Bible states as the natural order of things. When you can provide irrefutable proof of a dog becoming a cat, a reptile becoming a bird, a whale becoming a cow, or a primate becoming a human, then you may have ground to stand on. It is obviously not "undeniable, proven fact", otherwise there would not be any argument over it. Gravity is a proven fact, we drop something, it hits the ground, time after time. It has been observed, tested, retested and falsified. Evolution cannot stand up to any of these scientific tests. Evolution is a philosophy, a belief system, a world view, just like creationism. We all have the same evidence, it is a matter of the interpretation of that evidence. Simply screaming, "IT IS A FACT!" does not make it so.

Answer 3

Wrong..!! 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.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Will you now retract your ignorant comments..?

Answer 4

Nah dude, you are confusing two very different terms. The conventional meaning of a "theory" in English is a hunch. Kind of like the Cubans being involved in the Kennedy assassination.

A scientific theory on the other hand requires a thesis that is verifiable, observable, and is contantly tested. The more scrutiny and time it withstands, the stronger a theory. So, the theory of gravity, which has been tested A LOT of times, seems to hold up pretty well. Still, someday, it may no longer be the case. You mention facts, which are really inexistent, because the full scope of time is not considered, just what's been observed up until now. Meaning that facts are derived from inductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive reasoning.

The notion that God hid a bunch of really old bones of animals that no longer exist, sounds like more of a hunch.

Answer 5

are you talking about mathematical limits? perhaps if you explained more about what you meant by "limits ... in metric spaces". i mean, why only metric spaces and not spaces measured in feet, yards, or miles, or lightyears... however, if you're speaking in mathematical terms of, say, calculus, then, limits are infinite. there is no convergence, ever. the space may be amazingly small, but the space remains.

the full name of the theory is, "einstein's theory of general relativity". i don't remember anyone ever formally pronouncing it fact. it remains, in the scientific community, a theory. sure, it has been a useful theory, but a theory, it remains.

i don't know anything about nash because i did not watch "a beautiful mind". ron howard films suck, imho, and i do not have the money for college right now.

"theory" in webster's dictionary: 2.) proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural
5.) a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it. (pertains to collection of data and examination of same).
7.) contemplation or speculation.

near as i can tell, people use the word "theory" to say, "until we have a better answer this will have to do".

say evolution over creationism.

evolution is an argument, whereas, creationism is a quarrel. no one means to say that evolution is an answer, rather that it is a way of arriving at answers. that is, until a better means is stumbled upon.

creationism is a quarrel, the idea pivots around a creator, is this supposed to be a new argument? next, you'll bust out with the supposedly fresh idea that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat... suppose for a minute that you weren't looking for evidence of the creator in the data, but rather how the processes changed over time and that you could prove these things mathematically with the materials you had available to you...

the problem that arises is when people have all the information they need and arrive at completely wrong answers; like when good meaning people read the new testament, call themselves christian, and decide to kill planned parenthood clinicians. that type of thing. or did i misread the question?

Answer 6

Evolution is just like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, people are like sheep, they believe it without question because they are told it it true, and they are told that only an ignorant moron or some sort of religious crank would even dare to question such revealed wisdom. So intellectual pride wins the argument, who wants to be branded a crank or a moron?
It is only when you break free from the sheep mentality that you are able to look at evolution objectively. It is only then that you seriously examine the evidence against evolution and find out that you have been a victim of the greatest scientific hoax of all time. It makes you angry that you were hoodwinked and you hate the fact that so many other continue to be hoodwinked.

Answer 7

Scientists believe ( I use the word believe because it is a scientists "theology") that anything can be explained. That if you analyze something closely enough you can discover and understand whatver you encounter. If they were to admit that God existed (there is no evidence to support that God doesn't exist and so much around us that he does) they would also have to admit that not everything can be explained in its entirity. It's all about pride. It's all about fear of the unknown. Evolution will be disproved then some other supposedly intelligent individual will try again to remove God form the equation.

Want to hear a interesting fact? One of the law's of thermal dynamic's states " Chao's can come from order but order never comes from chao's without the help of an outside force."

Supposedly the big bang is where the slow crawl of evolution began. Lets review the big bang "theory". One of the latest version's (it changes periodically) is that two large mass's called "dark matter" collided to create a gigantic explosion which jump started the universe. Doesn't this all sound abit chaotic? Look at that law of thermal dynamics. According to scientists own laws this theory is impossible.

Thermal dynamics is a proven fact. It was tested in a closed system. Let me define both a closed system and a open one.
In an open system the rate decrease's over time. IN a closed system the rate is either constant or increasing. Why do I tell you this? So I can demonstrate that thermal dynamics applies to the universe. How do we determine if the universe is a closed system or an open one? SImple. Look at the rate of increase of the universe. The universe has been expanding ever since it started and scientists expected the the expansion to slow over time then cave in on itself as expected in an open system. Thru very complex methods they have been tracking the expansion of the universe and were shocked to discover that the rate of expansion was increasing in speed. That only happens in a closed system thus thermal dynamics apply.

Since thermal dynaics apply and are a proven fact for a closed system it makes the big bang theory totally and completly imossible. As a result it discredits evolution as well.

One last time we will look back at that law.

" Chao's can come from order but order never comes from chao's without the help of an outside force."


Want to know the outside force? Want to know who made it possible for us to exist? You can talk to him right now if you wished too.

Answer 8

It is not absolutely proven, but it is observable. More and more people are coming along that do not have wisdom teeth (why?) because they were not needed so people are evolving away from them. Look at bones of horses from thousands of years ago. They have definitely evolved from then to now and you can tell it by the bones. BUT--- it is not true that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe that God created the world and all that is in it. Like Pope Benedict XVI said, the two things are not mutually exclusive. We know that God created because observing the world and all the organisms (life) in it we can see intelligence had to have evolved these creatures the way they are. All the cells in an organism work in symphony with all the other cells of an organism toward the good of the entire organism. It is far more complex than the finest tuned machine and could not logically have happened by chance. Your scientific intellect should tell you that. It is not logical to believe that the world was created in seven days, as the fundamentalists believe, because we know that dinosaurs existed for millions of years before the dawn of man. I know what the bible says, but, as I have said in another answer, we, Catholics, do not take those stories literally. They are true stories in the aspect that they contain truths which the writers intended to reveal to his audience. In this case, the truth is God created the world and everything in it and He saw that it was 'good'. Genesis is not an historical book and was never meant to be. Most biblical scholars will tell you this. But a story, though it is basically meant to reveal truths, must, of necessity contain the voice and imagination of the author. Until recently (the last 500 years) these stories were not taken literally at all but treasured as inspired because they contain basic truths about God and us and our relationship to Him.

Answer 9

"When will you get it through your thick heads that theories are just somebody's wild guess, and not a set of propositions that are scientifically well-confirmed by empirical evidence."

Such a ridiculous statement makes me ponder the following questions:

1. What kind of education do you have?

2. Are you serious?

3. Are you trolling?

4. Do you have any idea how much is involved in developing a theory?

5. For that matter, do you even comprehend what a theory is?

6. Are you really serious?

7. Seriously, do you really believe that?

8. I can't believe you're serious, are you sure you're serious?

Answer 10

Because science has a bias that if they feel they are mostly correct, they will just assume the rest is too. Scientists have ego problems like anyone else and they don't like to think they are only fact collectors and nothing more.
"When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -Albert Einstein.

Answer 11

The definition of theory as it relates to science is the general or abstract principles of a body of fact. 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.

They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Your realize that the scientific explanation behind what enables an electrical switch to turn on an electrical appliance is theory. Do you also deny that an electrical switch can turn on an electrical appliance because it's a theory?