It's just a theory...?

Question

Evolution is a "theory" that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Theories are "unproved assumptions." Why would you want to believe in something that is only an assumption?

Answer 1

So true! Jesus is real - the Truth.

Answer 2

The alternative to believing the evolution theory would be to say "I don't know." Such an admission would make atheists appear less knowledgeable then those who believe in creation and a divine plan. I suspect that the creation and the theory of evolution exist so that mankind can exercise their free will to believe or not to believe in God. Neither side can prove beyond a doubt that either is correct.
Luke 11:29 "This is an evil generation: they seek a sign: and there shall no sign be given it."

Answer 3

It's not really a theory. Through the scientific method, it does make sense. Think about it. Why are there wolves and dogs? Why are they so alike and so different? Things like that are, to an extent, proof of evolution.

It's based on evidence. More so than the idea of God just up and making everything. Personally I believe in God-guided evolution....

Answer 4

The question raised fundamental questions about Theory

What is a theory? If you ask a learned man he will answer it by comparing it to fact, stating that a theory was a non-substantive explanation for a set of facts. As more facts become known theoretical explanations give way to factual ones. Ultimately, a theory may be vindicated , partially vindicated or overturned.



If a historian uses this word,he gives it this meaning.
On the other hand, when a scientist or engineer means what my friend defined, he uses the word “hypothesis” or “hypothetical.” When he uses the word “theory” or “theoretical,” however, he means something entirely different.


In scientific usage “theoretical” is the opposite of “empirical.” In measuring the speed of sound in sea water, for example, researchers frequently use an equation that consists of a long series of increasingly smaller functions of density, salinity, temperature, and pressure. This equation is the result of measuring the speed of sound in sea water under a very large number of differing situations, and then deriving the equation from these data. It is called an empirical equation.


Another approach to the same problem is to create a mathematical model of the ocean, and to derive an equation for the speed of sound that depends upon the mathematical structure of this model. This equation is called a theoretical equation.


Both equations are real. One is derived empirically, the other theoretically. Each is subject to error, and each is only as good as its ability to predict the actual speed of sound in any given situation. Ultimately, scientists attempt to replace empirical equations with theoretical ones, as they gain a deeper understanding.


Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relatively is a set of theoretical equations derived from a mathematical model of the universe. They explain many things in our daily lives: why transistors work, for example. Quantum Mechanics is another theory in physics. It explains why nuclear reactors work.


These theories are real and highly accurate, because they predict events with great precision. They are theoretical – and they are true.


When an individual applies the historian’s definition to the scientist’s use of “theory,” the result is confusion and misinformation. While the scientist distinguishes between model-derived and empirical solutions, the lay person believes he distinguishes between assumption and reality.


For the layman fact ultimately displaces theory; for the scientist, theory ultimately explains fact.


A case in point is the theory of biological evolution, probably one of the best established and most widely accepted scientific theories. Well intentioned people who don’t understand the meaning of the word “theory” have assumed that the theory of evolution is an unproved hypothesis. Many of these individuals object to evolution on religious grounds, and use their misunderstanding of the nature of a scientific theory to reject one of the most essential unifying concepts in biological science.


In an ideal world, a scientist collects data, and then creates a theoretical construct that explains their existence. Following this, the construct is tested by various means to establish its ability to hold up to reality. Over time, the original construct typically undergoes modification as additional data become known. Occasionally a construct has to be discarded and replaced with something else, because new data cannot be fit into the old framework.


A good example of this is the old phlogiston theory, wherein a substance called phlogiston was believed to be consumed when something burned. Researchers weighed an object before burning, and then again after burning. Since it seemed to weigh less after burning, obviously, something had been consumed: phlogiston. The English clergyman Joseph Priestly discovered that when he heated mercury in a jar, the jar became coated with a red substance. If he put a mouse into the jar after the red substance formed, the mouse died. When the red ash evaporated, a glowing splinter thrust into the jar would burst into flame, and a mouse would become hyperactive. When Priestly described his experiment to the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, he immediately realized from his own experiments that Priestly had discovered a new substance which he called oxygen. Lavoisier had determined through careful measurements that substances that burned actually took on weight. He concluded that Priestly had discovered the substance that supplied that weight: oxygen. Consequently the phlogiston theory was discarded in favor of Priestly’s and Lavoisier’s new theory.


Philosophical (and religious) arguments typically go the other way. You start out with a construct (hypothesis) which you then attempt to verify with data. If the construct really does reflect the outside world, then the data will tend to verify the construct. Unfortunately, when the data are at variance with the construct, ideologues typically will either ignore the data or twist and modify them so that they fit. Only very rarely do they modify their construct to fit the data.


An example of one such modification was when the Roman Catholic Church finally accepted the long established scientific fact that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System.


In today’s world, the confusion of the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis” by non scientific people has resulted in a schism separating fundamental Christianity from modern biological science. Simply stated, the fundamental Christian perspective currently considers the Biblical construct more important than the data. In effect, people holding this point of view have decided that the Biblical Old Testament “explanation” for how humans came to be is “absolutely” correct. Consequently, they are forced to modify their and the public’s perception of the overwhelming data that supports biological evolution as scientists currently understand it, replacing it with a construct they call “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design

Answer 5

Scientific theories are not "unproved assumptions." The closest to that would be a hypothesis, though those are very educated guesses. A hypothesis graduates to a theory when evidence is found to support it.

Answer 6

like some said , gravity is a theory , if you dun believe it , you can try jumping from the aeroplane and test it's existence.

till now no one can really understand gravity totally, but does it happen ? short answer : yes.

just like evolution , its a theory . it's logical but then again , it boils down to whether do you accept the explaination as logical or not.

virus evolve and become resistance against drugs and treatment . you can believe it or just say they mutate not evolve.

then again , earliest human species are dated 1~2+ million years ago and earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

if anything were to evolve into human , you would have to wait 4.4+ billion years to witness it . adam only lives till 900+ years old . can you live that long to witness major evolution ? but then again would you settle for miniscule evolution ?

Answer 7

I don't BELIEVE in evolution. No scientist does. Like you said, it's a theory. We don't "believe" in concepts as you faithful do. We simply study what evidence is available and produce plausible explanations for such things as the beginnings of the universe and the ascension of the species. I'm not saying that I "believe" that I am right and you are wrong. I'm saying that from the evidence that is available for evolution, it is a plausible explanation. As for the biblical explanation? Well there simply is no evidence to observe is there?

Answer 8

Because your alternative is believing in nothing, and getting nowhere as a result. Ultimately unless you're willing to conduct all your own research and studies, it's going to come down to you believing in something. You believe George Washington was the first president of the United States, right? How do you know? Have you conducted your own genealogical study? Were you there to witness his inauguration? No...you believe it, because in spite of the potential doubt due to your lack of personal experience, it makes the most sense at any given time.

It's the same reason why people pick sides on the evolution/creation debate. There is no solid evidence either way, so people simply pick the side they feel presents the best case, and run with it.

Answer 9

It's a scientific theory, therefore it is completely logically possible. Like gravity is a theory...would you call that an unproved assumption. You're not one of those people who think that "god is the truth"....because, if we're talking theories: i think the likely hood of evolution simply blows "god" out of the water.

Answer 10

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Answer 11

Gravity is only a theory too.

Therefore, according to your logic, it is an "unproved assumption"

Why would you want to believe in something that is only an assumption?

EDIT: Tony H is proving my point. While gravity is only a "theory" in scientific terms, it is accepted as "fact" by the non-scientific world. The "theory" comes from the fact that there is no 100% accurate way to quantify the gravitational effects. Gravity's pull even changes depending on your latitude. The Earth is slightly bulged out along the equator, which places a person on the equator farther away from the Earth's center than someone at the poles, which is similar to a change in altitude.