Why do people question evolution because it's just a theory, but never question atomic theory?

Question

In many of the questions that deal with evolution and creationism people respond by saying that evolution should not be accepted or taught in school because it is "just a theory, not a fact."

What about atomic theory? That's a theory, but nobody questions it or objects to it. Besides, the Bible never mentions atoms.



In short:
Why do people object to evolution on grounds that it's a theory, whereas nobody objects to atomic theory?

Answer 1

Atomic Theory doesnt disprove the story of Creation, as evolution allegedly does (because they say that we were created in our present forms, and did not evolve...so, it negates the need for God.)

Answer 2

The problem is the word "theory" has a strict definition in science, and it's much stronger than the way most people use it. Something that is just a hypothesis must undergo rigorous testing and evaluation and peer review before it can finally reach the point of theory. (Thus, "String theory" is not actually a theory yet and shouldn't be called as such.) Evolution isn't "just a theory". There is extremely strong evidence to the point that scientists accept it and have elevated it beyond just a hypothesis. Similarly with what you're calling atomic theory. Particle accelerators can easily detect the presence of atoms, as well as sub-atomic particles such as protons. The presence of atoms is far more than just a hypothesis; it has advanced to the full level of theory. When non-scientists hear the scientific term "theory" they often misinterpret it and think it's just an idea being thrown around and other scientists blindly accept it. Wikipedia sums it up very well: "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable." This definition issue has created a lot of big problems for science, because people mistakenly think a theory is just an idea and nothing more.

Answer 3

Atomic theory is well tested in science. One can hardly refute atomic theory and still claim to have a sane approach to the evidence.

Evolution taken to mean life evolving from single celled organisms though is not only a statistically ridiculous claim (unless you insert a logical fallacy, like assuming there are multiple parallel universes when evidence for such does not exist), but it is also not able to be tested. Small scale evolution limited to the speciation of the most basic forms of life can be recreated in a lab, and in some rare cases has been observed in the most simple of lifeforms, but observing evolution on the scale claimed by most scientific advocates of the textbook form of evolution is not observable or testable. Therefore, it flies in the face of the scientific method. Even if I was not Christian, I would not believe in evolution, there is just no conclusive supporting evidence for it. Mathematically, full-scale evolution is impossible, even if the Earth is billions of years old.

Further, the existence of electrons, protons, atoms, etc. is an observable phenomena. It is also a testable theory which has been refined and supported by testing so much that the probability of it being completely wrong is essentially zero.

Finally, for evolution to work, one must make the assumption that the as the universe operates now, so it has always been. In other words, you must assume that the Universe behaved exactly the same billions of years ago as it does now. You must also assume that the Earth behaved the same way as it does now billions of years ago. The problem with that is we can't go back and say for certain that nothing changed. If there was a catastrophic event that drastically changed the way the Universe behaved, it completely screws up everything we know about our world today through science. Christianity explicitly claims that all of creation was altered when man sinned, in the book of Genesis. If this is true, this is grounds to doubt the credibility of a full scale evolutionary theory. It is not grounds to assume that natural selection and evolution didn't take hold after the fall, and thus possibly produce all of the species we have to day out of a fewer number of species, according to their kinds - no one should really doubt the possibility of that. But of the grand scale we all came from bacteria, or whatever, there is plenty of room for doubt and debate. Further, the age of the Earth, even scientifically, does not allow for such extensive evolution as the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

We see atomic theory in action every day. Anyone who knows atomic theory can see this plainly with little effort. Evolution is not something seen... ever.

Further, the biggest problems for religious people when faced with the theory of evolution are these.

1. Scripture claims there was no death before the fall of man (unless you are reading the scriptures in a totally wacky and unreasonable manner). If this is true, then natural selection couldn't have existed for species to adapt and evolve. Therefore, evolution would not have been possible as "science" claims it happened. And I use the term science here very very loosely.

2. Evolution implies that death is part of the natural process by which things were made. Scripture said in the beginning all things were good. If this is true, then death was created in the beginning, and it was good. but if this is true, then we were made to die. The whole predicament in the Bible is that man has sinned and therefore the creation is decaying and dying. But if death and destruction is part of the natural order that God created, and it's good, then why do we need saved from it. This concept makes a mockery of the Cross, and, in fact, the entire life of Christ.

That is why Christians have a problem with Evolution. As I have already stated, I would not believe Evolution even if I were atheist, just for the plain and simple fact that it does not actually follow the scientific method. Evolution is a philosophy, and far from science. The theory is not constructed on direct observation, but on a collection of conjectures based upon random geographical data. No other theory in the history of science has been so widely accepted as infallibly true with such inconclusive and questionable evidence.

If you want the details, get a book. Theres lots of them out there. The theory falls apart, though, on the basic understanding of how biological science is approached.

Answer 4

Evolution is taught "as is" in the school systems today. It is all, that is taught. It is not taught as "theory" but as this is what took place. Atomic theory is taught as theory not as set in stone fact. It is now illegal to teach that there is any other opinions than evolution. Yes we can tell our children differently at home, but, our faith is ridiculed, belittled and mocked by the very system that we must fund and rely on to teach our children. If you start telling you children that the teacher is wrong on this, what is to prevent them form expanding that to anything they want to. See what I mean, How do you tell your 6th grade child, You must listen and learn what your teachers tell you, except on this, its a lie. see it just doesn't work. If it was taught as, "many in the scientific community believe that man ......"
that would be different but it is not that way.

Answer 5

Someone help me with this.. but at one time the Catholic church denied the atomic theory. It messed with the idea the bread and wine becoming Jesus' body and blood. I can't find a reference now, maybe someone else can.

Edit:
Alleninthehills. Are you a science teacher? Do you actually know how evolution is taught in the public schools? I do, I am going into my 9th year of it real soon.

Answer 6

Atomic theory has been proved beyond doubt. Those who wrote the Bible never heard of an atom or anything else that kids in elementary school learn today. You are probably confusing creationism with evolution. Spend more time reading about subjects that educate you, you will be much better off.

Answer 7

Certain theories within science are afforded much more credibility. For instance, gravity has been demonstrated time and time again that it has even been awarded the status of law, the same with the laws of planetary motion, thermodynamics, etc. A theory is simply a hypothesis or an explanation of a phenomena. The problem with evolution is first of all we are limited in how much we can actually demonstrate that it happens since it takes so long for it to happen. The actual phenomena of it taking place takes to long for us to observe in even one lifetime, making it more tendentious than say atomic theory or others.

Answer 8

Because atomic theory, unlike evolution, does not impinge on biblical text. But evolution is now a proven fact, not just a theory.

Answer 9

because atomic theory is based in fact,evolution has to have out right lies for it to stand! how stupid people are going to look when the next groop of scientist ,that will be honest with themselves, using all technological advances finally put an end to this myth! it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in god ! thus theory becomes religion!

Answer 10

or the theory of gravity for that matter. How many Christians question that because its "just a theory" after all?