Why is evolution taught as a fact when it is only a theory?

Question

I mean, a theory is only a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, originating from or supported by experimental evidence! That's no reason to treat it as empirical truth in our classrooms! Go Intelligent Design!

The answers bring me to another point. Gravity is a theory too! Why don't we take THAT out of school?! And the kinetic theory of matter, the atomic theory, the germ theory and the quantum theory! String theory can stay because it offers no testable evidence.

Ok, enough with the charade... some people are so oblivious to overflowing sarcasm that it isn't even funny...

Answer 1

Because a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, originating from or supported by experimental evidence. That's why.

Answer 2

And here we go again with differences in jargon. I notice that you lifted your definition of "theory" off the wikipedia entry for scientifc theory. You conveniently forgot to quote the very next sentences, which state, "In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

In the context of the scientific method, a "theory" is far beyond a hunch that makes logical sense. A hypothesis is not elevated to "theory" status until it is supported by *the preponderance* of all available experimental data. The data pool, itself, must be both broad and deep for this to happen. For example, gravity is a theory, just like evolution. If a theory, like gravity, is just a guess, then why doesn't everybody take all necessary precautions to make sure they don't suddenly fall up into the sky?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but evolution is fact. It happens. Give me a week and I can evolve you a multi-drug resistant strain of bacteria from non-resistant starter population in the labs downstairs.

If you want to believe that a deity is responsible for the development of life on Earth, that's fine. Go right ahead. Science has no way to prove or disprove the existence of any such deity. However, we can tell you that any deity involved in the development of life used evolution as its creative method.

Answer 3

Not only is evolution a theory, it's a very flawed one at that. To simply it, an species forms something new (mutation?). The creature then decides this is an improvement for its kind. Succeeding generations then decide to keep this appendage (whatever it is) and shed those that are less useful.
Two major things wrong here.
1. Living things have the ability to "decide" what to physically or mentally (as in instincts) retain and what to shed.
2. It is a know fact that whenever a "new" variation is formed from a species, that creature is barren. Therefore, how is succeeding generations possible?

Evolution is the driftwood clung to by those who are drowning in swill of refusing to believe in God. (And that's original. Copyright: N. Hinckson.)

Answer 4

Most text books I've seen do not reference the law of evolution--they reference evoluion or the theory of evolution.
Evolutionary theory has withstood peer review for over a century now and no observations or experimental evidence has ever been brought forward to refute the theory. Intelligent design on the other hand is not suitable for teaching in a science class. In a science class the basic tenat is hpothesize, test, obeserve, modify and so on and so on--with the basic underpinnings that causality exist. The basic tenant of Intel Design violates causality. Intelligent Design is a philosophy based on the basic assumption that a Creator created everything. This theory is fine in religion or philosophy class--but when you are teaching young people to thinking logically and critically--test and observe--I.D. does not belong. That would be equivlent to teaching Buddism in math class.

Answer 5

Evolution is still taught as the "theory of Evolution" this would seem to indicate that scientist still consider it a theory, all be it the most plausible theory out there. That is why it is taught. Just as in History class one has to investigate all the theories to the cause of certain events - so it is with life on Earth. Some theories are not plausible what-so-ever. Just as postulating that the Jews caused 9/11 is not plausible so too is the creation "story". This is not to exclude God from the process, it is merely to say that the 7 day scenario is not "scientifically" true, even if it is metaphorically true.

Answer 6

i imagine that gravity is better than a concept, that's a regulation of physics and may want to be measured and anticipated in accordance to variables. The evidence that we've related to Evolution is what's taught, no longer that evolution is a reality. we do no longer have each and each and every of the links. The evidence we've finally ends up in conclusions, a minimum of concerning the creation of guy.

Answer 7

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This is a fact. It has been observed in many thousands of examples.

Evolution is also defined as the theory which explains this fact.

A fact is defined as a statement about reality for which the evidence is so strong that to disbelieve it would be simply foolish.

A theory (as used in science ) is defined as "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" .The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. For instance Human Sexual Reproduction is the theory that explains where babies come from.

The Theory of Evolution uses propositions such as Mutations and Natural Selection to explain the fact that Evolution occurs.

Answer 8

Actually...how can we even experiment with evolution? It doesn't even fit your description of a theory. How many people out there can evolve an animal into a more advanced animal? There is no experimental evidence to support evolution! People who have doubts about the existence of a higher power may never really know how things came into being. Science cannot prove evolution by the scientific method. Carbon dating is flawed also...according to honest scientists. They developed the carbon dating based on their own theories about the age of the planet and the universe...so what they say "x amount of carbon on certain items means y-millions of years" could actually mean x amount of carbon on certain items means y-thousands of years instead. However, scientists will admit that when water is present with carbon dating, it will skew it--cause it to be inaccurate. Guess what the Great Flood of Noah's time did...it brought massive amounts of water into the picture. It explains why you can find sea shells embedded in the Rocky Mountains. Also explains why a woolly mammoth sample could be several million years old in one section and only a few hundred thousand years in another section of the same sample.
The reason evolution is taught is because Creationists and Intelligent Designers can't seem to get all their ducks in a row...some people think Creation happened over thousands of years, as if God could not make it happen in His own time frame. Other's believe the Bible account of Creation is literal--as I do. Also, the World is not run by the people who believe in God...the NEA is run by liberals and atheists for the most part...they pretty much decide what America will teach its public educated students. The excuse is to teach something that separated religious beliefs from scientific. However, you need much more faith to believe in macro-evolution than you do to believe in God. There is more evidence of God than the idea that things become more complex over time, instead of decaying away.

Answer 9

The theory of evolution is an explanation of all the facts discovered relevant to the subject.

Intelligent design which is not a theory or even a hypothesis has no facts to support it whatsoever. It is a joke, and has become the laughing stock of the majority of the civilised world.

Answer 10

I thought it might be the other way around, that religion is based on myth and science is based on theories that have been tested beyond reasonable doubt.

Like splitting the atom to make a big bang as in atom bomb. Now that is now fact isn't it just ask Japan.