Evolution, Fact Or Theory?

Question

True science states that in order for a theory to become a fact, it must be reprodused in a lad successfully many times over. Sence noone was there in the beginning to record the exact conditions, any experiments must be based on unproven speculation. Therefore, the theory of evolution, is a faith based religion ( Humanism ), just as the theory of creation is. What is your response to this statment, and please show your reasons.

Answer 1

>"True science states that in order for a theory to become a fact, it must be reprodused in a lad successfully many times over."

No, no, no. (Who is teaching you science??)

FIrst, a theory can *never* become a "fact". A theory is an *explanation* of facts ... and an explanation, a theory, can't "become" a fact itself.

Second, it is not a *theory* that has to be reproduced many times over ... it is an *experiment* or an *observation* that needs to be reproduced. It's the *EVIDENCE* that needs to be reproducible, not the theory. And the evidence for evolution is absolutely repeatable.

>"Sence noone was there in the beginning to record the exact conditions, any experiments must be based on unproven speculation."

By that logic, we can never know *anything* about anything that wasn't recorded. That's ridiculous. That would throw out not only evolution, but all of geology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, anthropology, and most of archaeology ... all of it just "unproven speculation" in your eyes.

But here's a simpler analogy. How do you know that that big oak tree in the forest is really 300 years old, and grew from a seedling? Nobody was there to "record" the planting of the tree. No human watched it grow from seedling to its current height. Do you then conclude that it is "unproven speculation" that the oak tree really was a seedling 300 years ago? Do you conclude that the Oak Tree was put there by God, in its current (fully grown) form?

...

So to answer your question. Evolution is *BOTH* a fact *AND* a theory. The *process* of evolution is a fact ... we see it occurring in living organisms, we can duplicate it in the laboratory, we can manipulate it in domestic animals and plants, etc. The *theory* of evolution is the *explanation* for how that process of evolution occurs in nature (natural selection), and how that process *explains* all the species on the planet from common ancestry. That is (obviously) a theory ... but a theory in the scientific sense ... meaning an *explanation* that is consistent with the existing evidence.

To simply claim that you don't see the evidence, and thus that it is nothing but "speculation", is to say that the vast majority of scientists in the world who accept evolution as the bedrock theory of science (we're talking tens of thousands of brilliant people who live eat and breathe evidence *for a living*) are *ALL* either idiots of frauds.

If that is what you are saying, then you really, truly, HATE science and scientists ... and you have no business trying to make a scientific argument.

Answer 2

It is a hoax. "but only when used in the context of a dog producing another dog for example. It has been observed in nature, and in laboratories that you can produce more breeds within a species. That makes 'evolution' a fact." That is a kind producing the same kind, which the Bible states as the natural order of things. When you can provide irrefutable proof of a dog becoming a cat, a reptile becoming a bird, a whale becoming a cow, or a primate becoming a human, then you may have ground to stand on. It is obviously not "undeniable, proven fact", otherwise there would not be any argument over it. Gravity is a proven fact, we drop something, it hits the ground, time after time. It has been observed, tested, retested and falsified. Evolution cannot stand up to any of these scientific tests. Evolution is a philosophy, a belief system, a world view, just like creationism. We all have the same evidence, it is a matter of the interpretation of that evidence. Simply screaming, "IT IS A FACT!" does not make it so.

Answer 3

Wrong. A scientific theory should be based on repeatable observations, and evolution is. We observe patterns in the DNA of humans and chimps, and see the similarities. Not just one human and just one chimp. Many humans and many chimps. That's repeated observation. We haven't just dug up one Neanderthal fossil. We have quite a few of them (as well as many other fossils.) That's also repeated observation.

Evolution is essentially a fact as well as a theory, just as plate tectonics is. Just because we weren't there doesn't discount it. When a jury convicts a man of murder, because his DNA and fingerprints were found on a gun, were they there? Evolution has left many proverbial "fingerprints" unmistakeably.

Also, evolution has nothing to do with humanism, or any kind of religion. It just says that we share a common ancestor with other animals. It doesn't say anything about morality, or God, or a soul, or anything else like that.

Any projection of morality or philosophy that people see fit to impose on evolution just reflects how stupid those people are. I would suspect, however, that the so-called evolutionary humanist is probably just a caricature created by Bible-thumpers.

Answer 4

Probably the most illogical statement I've ever heard, when you equate it to creationism.

Are you saying that the atomic theory isn't credible simply because it is not fact?

Evolution is fact by the way. It is the theory that explains HOW the allele frequencies change in any given population.

Answer 5

Not exactly correct on your premise.

Evolution is either a Law, or a theory.

In science, a theory is a model that fits some, or most of the available facts, but not all.

When a model fits all of the available facts, it becomes a law.
That is why we have The Laws of Entropy (which conflicts with the Theory of Evolution).
That is why we have The Law of Gravity.
That is why we have The Law of Thermodynamics. (which conflict with the Theory of Evolution).
The Laws of Attraction....and The Theory of Evolution.

Now evolutionary proponents are careful what they say..they use facts and evolution together a lot...but never Law.

Granted, many facts seem to support the T of E, but many also support the Theory of Creation.

The problem Creation Scientists have with the T of E is that is in direct conflict with the 2 known Laws mentioned above.

If a Law always fits the available facts, and proves itself when tested against reality, and a Theory contradicts not one, but 2 of those Laws...it is very hard to convince a thinking man that the Theory is actually a Law.

The T of E is just what it says it is...a theory that fits many of the available facts, and often proves out when tested against reality, but falls way short of being a Scientific Law.

Answer 6

Continental drift cannot be reproduced in a lab, yet we know it is a fact. Evolution is also a fact, it's not a matter of faith. All the evidence shows, without a doubt, that living organisms on earth have changed dramatically over time. Natural selection is a theory -- that's the explanation for HOW all this evolution took place.

Answer 7

Hi.

I cannot provide a better answer than Secretsauce. As always, he is concise and persuasive (as well as correct).

However - I can answer a couple of points brought up by other answerers:

Response to Steve M:

In science a theory must fit *all* the facts - not just *some* of them, for it to be accepted. If it doesn't it has to be discarded or changed. There may well be a "lag time" between when new, contradictory evidence is brought to light and when the theory is changed to accomodate it - but it will happen. It's how science *works*.

Theories and Laws are different animals in science.
A Law is an observation, while a Theory is an explanation.
For example, the Law of Gravity states that all matter atttracts other matter; there are a number of Theories as to how this happens (gravitons, superstring, etc.), but the Theory is *not* the same as the Law.

The "Law of Evolution" states that species evolve over time; this has been observed in many different ways, from fossil evidence to more direct observation of the appearance of new traits in populations (like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in mosquitoes). The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how this happens (Natural Selection) and of the consequences it has in the world(Speciation and Diversification).

And the Law of Entropy (aka the Second Law of Thermodynamics) does *not* contradict the Theory of Evolution. Thermodynamics only apply in a closed system - one with no loss or gain of energy. The Earth is *not* a closed system, it is constantly receiving a huge amount of energy from the sun. The gain in entropy by the sun (by loss of energy) completely offsets the gain in energy on the earth (by an increase in order of molecules here in the form of life).

And there is no scientific evidence for Creation. There is some evidence that evolution might not always be as is currently accepted (for examples, debates on exactly which evolutionary route was taken to provide any current organism, or the slow evolution vs punctuated equilibrium theories), but evolution itself is not open for debate, because there is no evidence against it.

To answer missy:

I am glad you are able to disagree with your Pastor on occasion; it shows an open mind, which is a good thing!

However, Evolution is *not* "faith-based" - it is *evidence*-based. Evidence is the bedrock on which science stands, and there is plentiful evidence for evolution.
You are quite correct that the majority of people, even the majority of scientists, accept evolution without actually performing the experiments themselves. But - and this is the important part - they *could* do so if they chose. The reason scientific papers publish not only their results but also their methods is so that others can attempt to repeat their experiments and verify their findings.
No-one, not even Creationist scientists, has ever repeated a study demonstrating evolution and shown any other reasonable conclusion. All they can do is pick "facts" which, to a layperson, appear convincing, but which, to scientists, are easily refuted.

Answer 8

Evolution is both fact and Theory.

Your argument about theory becoming fact is not correct...an idea is ALREADY a fact b4 it becomes a Theory which is a set of general rules to explain why all the facts of an area work as they do.

Your idea that lab is needed is also false...that is same way as saying that police cannot figure anything out in any way about a crime unless a living person witnessed entire event and reported it verbatim to police.....any police officer would tell you that is complete BS.

Labs are better because they allow you control over all the factors so you can limit the variables in a way conductive to your study but that is in no way at all, by any definition, the only way science works....until you understand how it works the answer would be meaningless to you but here we go.

Evidence is collected in fossils, remains, dating of the evidence, DNA, etc which is collected. Now ALL life, in every single form across the ENTIRE planet has DNA and made of the same 4 proteins...which is evidence that, with all the proteins there are in existance comapred to only 4 being in DNA, al llife has a common root. The evidence is researched and classified and as we learn more we can see the footprint of each life form as it changes to adapt to enviornment. All these facts put together lead to one conclusion with any degree of security and reason...that life has evolved from simpler to more complex species via natural selection.

Hence Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with faith, but evidence and has nothing to do with religion at all in any way currently or previously defined by any language.

Creationism is in no way a Theory as science classifies the term....as we are debating science then it is science's rules we follow..not the bible's. So Creationism is a hypothesis at best but by its very definition there is no evidence, or way to analyse anything about it...hence it is not science and so not a Theory.


To sum up....If I was in a room with 4 people and no one else for miles and my wallet gets stolen...I could say God did it or I could look at the 4 other people and wonder if one of them took it since no one else was around and wallets do not move themselves. Now if I go with the people stealing it I can further narrow down based on each person's proximity, ability and personality. If I have enough information I could predict which person took my wallet......or I could just assume it turned to air via God's power.
One is reasonable and based on real data from the natural world....the other is an idea based on supernatural whim.

So they are hardly the same thing

Answer 9

Complete BS. In science, "theory" and "fact" aren't leves of heirarchy, they're completely different things. A scientific theory is basically an explanation of what's going on in in the phenomena it relates to. A fact is merely something that can be expressed as mathematically true. You need to learn about scientific (and, hell even mundane) terminology before you start going around claiming things on par with saying that a dog is just a bigger cat.

Oh and hey, I'll be copy & pasting this into the other instance of the same question.

Answer 10

1