How do evolutionary biologists view the theory of evolution?

Question

I see two dynamics at work:

1) The theory is a useful working hypothesis

and

2) The theory is a law of nature itself.

Number 1) is generally sound and probably could not be argued against very effectively.

However, it is number 2) that concerns me.

One Dr. Marsh stated: "I need offer no argument for evolution, since to doubt evolution is to doubt science, and science is only another name for truth." (in Dewar, "Difficulties of the Evolution Theory.)

Granted, this statement was made in the 1880s. However, it doesn not sound out of place today.

If scientists regard evolution as not only a useful working hypothesis, but a LAW OF NATURE itself, doesn't evolutionary theory then enter the realms of metaphysics, mythology, and philosophy (all valid areas of study, but non-testable)?

Love Jack

I'm open to having the "logical flaws" in my "argument" exposed. Please, by all means, do so.

Answer 1

BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO WATCH POKEMON
AND THEY THOUGHT ITD BE COOL TO HAVE A HUMAN EVOLVE

Answer 2

evolution is not a hypothesis - it is far beyond this level - it is a law in the sense that there has never been an observation contradicting it. but in general laws are statements about small (complexity) systems that can be broken down into a single equation or small set of equations - and a law does not mean it is a "fact" - but rather a good model for a particular situation - the fact of biological evolution will never be a law - it can never be broken down into a small set of equations - unless these equations are part of a grand unification theory.

Evolution is a process that is observable in a lab - and says nothing about the origin of life - as so many seem to think

Answer 3

You misunderstand, I fear, the nature of "science". Science is simply the result of a set of observations, experiments, and "thought experiments" that allow us to create a set of explanations for how stuff works. That set of rules is concrete enough to have predictive value. Any time an established scientific paradigm is shown to be faulty, it is replaced with one that works better.

Evolution is fact, not "theory" (small "t"), and is described & explained by the Theory (big "T") of Evolution. If and when that Theory is found wanting, it will be amended. Thus far, it has met the needs of science in that all available data fit the Theory going backwards in time. Testing it forwards (so far) is an impractical task...

Answer 4

>>HERE ARE SOME definite expressions as to evolutionary biology having very little validity:

*** wi p. 6 The Bible—Inspired by God? ***

--Even if the odds are against it, could not spontaneous generation have happened anyway? Physicist and astronomer Fred Hoyle says: “There is NOT A SHRED OF (my caps)evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth.” He also states: “As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.” .....
......Hoyle adds: “Biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance.” In effect, he asks, ‘Just how could the accidental coupling of chemicals in an organic ooze alone produce the 2,000 enzymes essential to life?’ He says the possibilities are one in 1040,000, or “about the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!” (The Intelligent Universe, F. Hoyle, 1983, pages 11-12, 17, 23) He adds, “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”—Evolution From Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, page 24.

--“Molecular evolution is NOT BASED (my caps)on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

Answer 5

I'm sure that Dr. Marsh's definition of Law of Nature wasn't the same as yours is now. No one I know needs to define evolution as more than a theory, because, again, our definition of theory isn't the same as yours. In order to agree with you, one would have to ignore all the logical flaws in your argument, as well as the scientific method.

Answer 6

A law is weaker than a theory. A theory has all the testing of a law, but also contains a testable mechanism (the hypothetical portion) to explain the results. If you call it a theory, if has exceeded the criteria of a law.

It satisfies 1 and 2.

Answer 7

A law of nature...you mean like gravity?? No way, dude!

Sorry, Jack, but you can't demean science just because some scientist somewhere didn't have his facts straight before he opened his mouth. Refer to the Occam's Razor principle--it is accepted by science as the ONLY working theory concerning the origin and diversification of life on this planet, therefore it is most likely correct.

Answer 8

That evolution occurs is a fact. We continue to learn new things regarding HOW life evolves; thus, the theory of evolution continues to evolve.

Answer 9

It is the entire basis for all modern Biology. There hasn't been a single peer reviewed paper that goes against the big idea in more than 80 years, and there are no competing scientific explanations. It is on as solid scientific ground as anything.

Answer 10

Saying something is a "law of nature" is meaningless statement.

Nature in and of itself is inanimate and powerless (Note: my statement recognizes the difference between this and the forces of nature, i.e., a hurricane, so don't start).

"Laws of nature" are merely descriptive statements of how we think things work (i.e., your definition of #1).

The bigger problem that evolutionary biologists face is that they don't have a unified theory of macro-evolution that is supported by their evidence. But the gyrations they continue to go through puts a smile on my face.

Check out the book -> Unshakeable Foudnations by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino.

It addresses your specific question is much more detail.

Answer 11

Firstly you should look up the scientific definition of the word theory.
Secondly evolution is a proven fact.