If evolution was given scientific "law" status and proven beyond all doubt. would that affect your beliefs?

Answer 1

I think I should provide some nomenclature help here.

In science, the hierarchy of certainty is theory, law, hypothesis, fact, with fact being the least reliable and theory the most.

In common parlance it is thought of as fact, law, theory, hypothesis. As a note, hypothesis is often, in common parlance, thought of as a guess, but it is an educated guess. No one would spend millions or even billions researching a guess.

The reason a theory is of higher value than a fact is that "facts," are often erroneous observations. To be technical, they are often partially or wholly statistical "noise."

Let me provide two examples. First, for a long time people knew there were 22 pairs of chromosomes. It was a well established "fact." The theory of evolution and the theory of genes used this fact to support it. Better testing devices let us discover there are 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The fact was wrong, but the theories were undisturbed by this single fact change.

Single observations are risky and cannot be used to prove anything. A good rule of thumb, in most cases, is that you need at least 30 independent observations to infer anything and often many more.

A theory must have tons of evidence. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, has billions of pieces of supporting evidence or facts if you wish.

A law is a scientist's rule of thumb. It isn't actually true in the strictest sense and is less true than the theory that supports it.

For example, Boyle's Law, which is taught to every introductory chemistry student is always false. There does not exist a case where it is true,ever. But it is always very close. Just a note, Boyle's Law is PV=nRT which is the pressure times the volume of an "ideal" gas equals the number of moles times the constant R times the pressure in Kelvin. It is never true, but it is close and PhD chemists use it unless they are doing precision work.

Another example of a law which is often true, but not always true is the "Law of Demand," in economics. The law of demand is that as price increases quantity demanded tends to decrease. This is usually true, but there are very important exceptions. The actual theory, which is typified by the Slutsky identity, provides clear cases where this must be false, but it is sufficiently true to use in most cases.

An example of where the law of demand fails are Giffen goods. A Giffen good is an inferior good, whose demand increases when the price increases. Historically, these are rare and only occur to people in desperate poverty. The first observation of a Giffen good occurred during the Irish Potato famine.

During the famine the diet was primarily potatoes and beef. When the price of potatoes increased, there was no longer enough money to buy a piece of beef forcing an increase in demand for potatoes just as potatoes were disappearing, resulting in starving people paying more to buy less food.

To make this concrete, imagine a potato cost one shilling and a piece of beef ten shillings. Imagine your budget was 20 shillings and you bought ten potatoes and one piece of beef. As potatoes became scarce, the price increase to 1.5 shillings per potato. So ten potatoes would cost 15 shillings, not leaving enough for beef, and so the remaining five shillings were divided among three potatoes. So demand at 1 shilling went from 10 potatoes to 15 potatoes at 1.5 shillings, creating a positively sloped demand curve.

Hypothesis are tests using facts of a very narrow question. You can only disprove an hypothesis, not prove one.

Facts of course simply exist, they do not mean anything, but they are the basis for testing hypothesis. If an hypothesis is tested and retested and retested it becomes part of theory.

Evolution, like gravity, hold the same weight in science because they are backed up by the same amount of proof.

Evolution will never have "law," status because it holds a higher status in science, that of a theory. Like gravity it is proved as much as anything can be proved. Science gives proof without certainty, religion provides certainty without proof.

Answer 2

I doubt it would change things. They'd just start saying 'it's only a law'.

You know, I assume, that evolution could never achieve 'law' status. It's already established way beyond any doubt - except by people who don't understand it - and no one who knows how biology works has no doubts at all.

CD

Answer 3

GODS LAW IS spiritual law ten commandments humans laws are based on this do not kill do not steal so scientific law needs a little faith go to www.live science they will tell you scientific don't know what why how when and a lot of stuff they don't know luv dad the artic clouds not ozone holes look at the space pic of the hubble telescope its unexplainable but it has flow the stars sweirl around in a circle GODS handi work .

Answer 4

To superAtheist- I do know how biology works, since my degree is in medical science, but I still don't believe in evolution as it's laid out in THEORY.

It can't be made a law because it can't be proven 100%. There is no way to prove it 100%. Because there is no way to prove it, I won't believe in the full theory. I can accept that it's possible for species to change some over time, but not that we came from one-celled micro organisms that eventually crawled out of the sea and grew legs. Sorry.. but that doesn't fly in my book.

Answer 5

Not really...

I already know that evolution happens, and has caused a great variety in the many forms life has taken on this planet..

I simply question whether that's how life began.

Answer 6

Yeah, it'll make my belief a scientific law...

Answer 7

No, I already accept the theory of evolution.

Answer 8

NO!
My God has already PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT that He excises! What man proves 2000 years later (which they haven't and can't) wouldn't matter to me.

Answer 9

Who has the authority to give it "law" status. Certainly not the scientist because he would have done so before it became a theory.

Answer 10

No

An atheist