Evolution: Theory or fact?

Question

Please, I really am interested in the answer of this question.

I do not want a whole load of people talking to me about God and the bible because I really am not interested.

My question is:

"Scientists: do they still view evolution as a theory, or has there now been enough evidence for them to view it as a fact?"

I am not bothered about individual opinions on the matter, or beliefs or a religious debate. I just want to know what scientists have discovered.

Thank you

Answer 1

It is *both* ... depending on what you mean by the single word "evolution" ... do you mean the *process* of evolution, or the *theory* of evolution?

The *process* of evolution is a *fact*. The *theory* of evolution is (obviously) a theory ... but a theory in the scientific sense.

Unfortunately, few people debating this issue stop to ask each other whether they are talking about the *process* or the *theory* of evolution. It is amazing how much debate and confusion arises from just failing to clarify the question before debating it!!

Let's define our terms:

The *process* of evolution is defined as "change of a species over generations". It is a *fact* that this process occurs. It is easily demonstrated in the lab. It is observed in nature. It is something humans have been relying on for centuries for as long as we've been breeding crops, livestock, cocker spaniels, or seedless watermelons. Even creationists have had to concede that the *process* of evolution is a fact ... although they try to dodge this admission by using the word "microevolution" for this process (which is a complete misuse of the scientific term "microevolution", which is a distinction for purposes of *studying* evolution ... NOT a division *IN NATURE* between two separate processes "microevolution" and "macroevolution" ... there is no such division *IN NATURE* ... there is only evolution).

The *theory* of evolution is the explanation for two aspects of that *process*:
(1) How that process (evolution) happens in nature (namely natural selection); and
(2) How that same process explains the existence of all species on the planet, by way of common ancestry tracing back to the first life forms.

The *theory* of evolution is (obviously) a theory ... but it is a theory in the *scientific* sense of the word. In other words, it does NOT mean a scientific idea that is "unproven" (as *all* scientific ideas are "unproven") ... but rather an *explanation with evidence*.

For anybody to say that the theory of evolution is "unproven" completely misunderstands science. Because *all* theories in science are "unproven." The theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, the heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system, the germ theory of disease, the plate tectonics theory of geology, the big bang theory, quantum theory, relativity theory ... *ALL* of these are universally accepted with high confidence by almost the entire scientific community ... and yet all are still called "theories", and always will be.

For anybody to say that the theory of evolution is "not widely accepted" is a baldfaced lie! Acceptance among scientists is between 95% in the United States (if you include non-biological "scientists" like computer scientists, chemists, etc.) and about 99% among scientists in the rest of the world, especially among biological sciences (biologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, paleontologists, ... etc. ... even doctors).

Answer 2

every fossil is a missing link. The thing is that it is not easy for creatures to become fossils, but even if there were no fossils, evolution would have enough evidence to call it a fact The thing is that people get hung up on the word theory, but the word theory in science means "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed" United States Academy of Science "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact" American Association for the Advancement of Science. So theory does not mean what you think it means. Evolution is a fact

Answer 3

As many have said already, the word "theory" is used differently in science than in common usage. Theory simply means explanation.

Science cannot literally "prove" anything in the same way that a mathematician could, for instance, because it's always possible to speculate about some other explanation. I could speculate that a flying spaghetti monster intentionally planted all of the evidence we have for everything, and you couldn't "prove" me wrong.

Having said that, for all practical purposes, evolution is fact. It is in as much doubt as the earth's motion around the sun. There is ample evidence to support it, both in the fossil record and in the genetic code.

Incidentally, I agree with Michael W about one thing. Science shouldn't be used to end faith. Evolution does not imply anything about God any more than gravity does. He is also correct that there will always be things we don't know, but that doesn't lessen the validity of the things we do know.

Also, I highly doubt that the 14th answerer "scientist" really is a scientist. To say that cars "evolved" under "selection" and imply that that is in any way analogous to biological selection and evolution shows a profound amount of ignorance.

Edit to Question below: I actually took a look at your "true origins" link below. As a physicist myself, I can tell you that they completely misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics and misquoted the Harvard physicist (which can be seen by ellipses right after he started getting to the main point. Misquotation and taking things out of context is a favorite ploy by creationist krooks.) Nice try.

Answer 4

Warning: theory does not mean unproven. A scientific theory is a set of rules and mechanisms that explain something properly, not something that's unproven.
The theory of relativity is still called that, and countless nuclear reactors proves that it is fact. The theory of gravity has been formulated hundred of years ago, it is still called a theory, but does it really need proving?

So, the theory of evolution can be a theory and a proven one at the same time.
And yes, it has been proven; the fact is that it explains lots (overwhelmingly lots of things) quite nicely. Those that dispute it the most are people lacking the proper knowledge, open mindedness and intellectual sophistication to debate something scientific properly. Even if they might accept that a mechanism like evolution can take place, they would insist that it nevertheless was not in place 6000 years ago, and the earth was made in six days flat by an almighty god (why would a god decide merely 6000 years ago to go ahead, while his alleged omniscience should have allowed him to realize a lot sooner than creating earth would have been a nifty endeavor is never really addressed? The ways of god, as they say...)

To summarize, those with the proper access to data, and with a properly working brain consider the evolutionary theory to be factual.

Answer 5

The theory of evolution is accepted as fact...just like other scientific theories (plate tectonics, atomic theory, relativity, etc.). Here is a great link for you to read which does a good job of explaining the scientific method and what is necessary for a hypothesis, a theory, and a law:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Here is a quote from the article:

"Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."

Answer 6

Technically evolution can never be regarded as a fact, this is due to the scientific method. Science can never technically prove a theory it can only substantiate it or falsify it.

Today organic evolution is regarded as a biological law, while natural selection, genetic drift, etc are viewed as theories. Evolution (here I am referring to both the law and explanatory theories) is viewed as one of the most substantiated ideas in science.

I have also heard certain evolutionary biologists speak out, saying that they want evolution to be regarded as fact to end the confusion and dissent over the topic.

So most scientists would give you the long explanation about the role of proof in science while some others would tell you that evolution is a fact.

Answer 7

I am a molecular biologist, and I would say that there is no doubt among scientists that evolution occurs. By this, I mean that natural selection occurs, and that species "change" over time in response to their environment. The quantity and depth of data, from field observation, archeology, genetics and genomics are simply overwhelming and beyond dispute.

What is not beyond dispute is whether or how all diverse life arose via some combination of the big bang, primordial soup, and evolutionary processes. Don't get confused about the different ways people use "evolution" People often use it as a shorthand for a theory about the origin of life, but it is really only relevant to discuss evolution as the cause of the origin of the different species, not of life itself. Really, evolution just suggests change and adaptation over time. You could say that cars have evolved. (Although that process would be considered unnatural selection, probably. But selection and adaptation nontheless.)

Hope that helps.

Answer 8

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.

Answer 9

In science, the word "theory" doesn't mean some wild-assed guess that someone came up with on a whim. If anything, a scientific theory is MORE true than fact. The theory of gravity is still a "theory," even though we feel gravity all the time. The word simply refers to a logical method of explaining natural phenomena based on observed evidence and testable predictions.

Evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in all of science. This is why it has survived over 150 years of scrutiny by scientists and denial by religious fanatics.

Answer 10

It's a theory. It's just not "just a theory" =)

There's two things to this: evolution is more of a conceptual model than anything; you're not going to find anybody that agrees on 100% of evidence - scientists vehemently bicker over details, both large and small surrounding evolution. Secondly, in science, when something is proclaimed a theory, it's a unifying model that allows scientists to frame further research.