Opponents of biological evolution often argue “evolution is only a theory and has yet to be proven”.?

Question

Do you agree or disagree. Why or why not?

Answer 1

Where on earth do people get the idea that theories are either "proven" or "yet to be proven"???

And then where do they get the even more bizarre idea that "yet to be proven" means "may as well consider it false"??

The phrase "only a theory" is nonsense ... meaningless ... in science.

A 'theory' is an *explanation* ... specifically an explanation that seems to have some evidence supporting it.

A theory is never "proven". Ever.

A theory is just considered stronger and stronger the more evidence it explains. But never, ever considered "proven."

That applies to the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the theory of relativity, the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) theory of the solar system, and yes the theory of evolution. All theories held with high confidence by all scientists ... and all still called 'theories', never considered "proven."

The reason this is so frustrating to people in the sciences, is that non-scientists who ask this question have fallen prey to the relentless creationist campaign to dumb science down to simplistic "Yes or No", "Proven or Not" thinking. Namely, that a 'theory' is no better than a 'wild speculation.' If something is "not proven" then it is discardable.

In other words, in order to try and discredit evolution, creationists have diluted science understanding among laypeople to the point where they even fail to understand BASIC concepts like 'theory', or the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof.'

Creationists are *purposefully* turning Americans into scientific illiterates ... and the laughing stock of the world.

Answer 2

I like to think that anything imaginable is possible. Probable is another point and is subjective. Proven fact is yet another and requires a high standard of scientific evidence which can be observed and duplicated. We really cannot argue that evolution is impossible. We can argue whether it is probable, since our perspectives and interpretations are incomplete and varied. We also cannot argue logically that evolution is proven and thus factual. The two extremes of this debate are logically and scientifically vacuous. The place we should approach for discussion is not "impossible vs. factual" , but rather probable or improbable. Until we have proof one way or another, this is where the debate should lie. I personally do not think we will have Proof one way or another, but who knows.

Answer 3

Evolution may be called a theory, but the opponents to it, those usually supporting "Intelligent Design," subscribe to a system based on beliefs and ideas not able to be proven, only to be taken on faith, unlike the scientific principles exhibited in evolution.

Just as there is some disagreement in scientific circles about the extent of evolution's influence on certain species and organisms there are just as many differences in beliefs about which creation myth or story is the one that can truly be attributed to our beginning.

Answer 4

Micro evolution - change in a particular species, eg. bacteria building drug resistance - is pretty much accepted by everyone. Macro evolution where, say a bird evolved from a fish, is very much disputed.

My personal opinion - is it proven? no, but it seems to have fewer holes than the alternatives.

Then again, i dont *believe* that electrons, protons, and neutrons have been *proven* - if the Einstein of tomorrow were to demonstrate a new model which explains everything that the current model does, and more, I'll quite happily use the new model, but again without *believing* it to be an absolute truth.

Answer 5

Evolution is a scientific theory with a lot of evidence backing it. It's the best explanation for the biodiversity we see on semi-isolated archipelagoes and islands, and the principles learned there can be applied to continents and oceans.

There are no good alternatives to evolutionary theory. "Intelligent Design" has no direct evidence.

Answer 6

That comes from a misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory". In layman's usage, 'theory' is roughly synonymous with 'conjecture', 'hypothesis', or 'guess'. In the context of science, 'theory' takes on a somewhat different meaning. A theory is an explanation for a set of facts, not an almost-fact like it is in casual usage.