What is a scientific theory?

Question

Does Intelligent Design fit the definition of scientific theory?
What about evolution?

Searcher: The reason I ask this here is because I'm wondering whether or not religious people have different views about how science works than non-religious people. I already know how non-religious people (and scientists) think about science, so I don't feel the need to ask the question there.

I agree that people shouldn't tell you to ask questions in other sections, as long as they deal with religion in some way.

And I'm honestly not trying to trick anybody with this question (although I do in other questions sometimes, and I probably shouldn't).

Answer 1

Scientific theory is based on information that can be quantified and measured. It requires physical evidence to back it up. A good scientific therory not only explains the observed events in the past, but it can also predict the outcome of future events with a high degree of accuracy.

Intelligent Design is a faith based concept that events are being controlled by some intellegent force with knowledge and forethought and a plan. This plan was put into place before man kind walked the face of the earth. Weither this "intellengent force is aliens from different gallaxies, or a devine being, it can not be proven by physical evidence. It is not science.

The biggest problem that most people have with evolution is they are clueless when it comes to scientific method, and what science is. They are comfortable in a belief system that the world around them was created by God. In their mind, they are trying to address a conflict between a faith based concept, and a concept that was reached by an objective interpretation of data collected by empherical means.

Science has already accumulated mountains of data about DNA, mutatations of DNA stucture, and gene mapping. Science can explain the diversity that has developed in all life on this planet. Science can not say this process was by accident or by design, it can only say the process exist.

A good scientist will tell you that during his studies, there are countless times that his concept of what makes the universe tick has been shaken to the foundation. Many things that he thought were true were based on erronious information. It is a constant struggle to separate fact from fiction or concepts that have a sound roots in chemistry and phyisics or concepts that are more intuitive in nature or based on faith. Many scientist are men of faith and believe there may be supernatural forces that shape the universe. Supernatural, by definition, means it can not be explained by science. As science advances, the number of supernatural events fall to the wayside. Any theory that requires a belief in supernatural forces is not science. There will always be a battle between the spiritual side of man and the intellectual side of man. Each person has to come to his own terms. Some feel that science threaten the existance of God and the supernatural. Some people feel the need for miricles. I have spent over 30 years of my adult life in the study and application of science. Fear not... There are many happenings in the world around us. Just because there is a scientific explaination for the process, does not make it any less a miricle.

Many scientist believe there is a high probability of intellegent life elsewhere in the universe other than planet Earth. It is speculation, not science. This concept will continue on. If a spaceship shows up 40 years from now with aliens aboard, then the concept moves from speculation to scientific fact. All the people that believed there is intellgent life would be correct in their assumption. Those that do not, would be wrong. Today, there is no scientific evidence that intellegent life exist in the universe other than Earth. It does not make the belief that intellegnt life outside of Earth is wrong, it just means that the belief of intelligent life outside of Earth is not science, but speculation.

Answer 2

A theory is a testable explanation for why observed events happen as they do. Theories might explain whether one event causes another, or whether two correlated events are caused by a third. A theory might assert that some events are necessary, but not sufficient, for certain others to occur. A theory might say that an experiment might have any of several different outcomes, and assign probabilities to each of them. The main thing is that a theory isn't scientific unless it can be tested. Intelligent design might be a theory, but it isn't science unless the existence of the designer can be tested for experimentally. Apparently, no satisfactory test has ever been proposed. Many people, including me, think that the idea behind "intelligent design" is to sneak religion into the science classroom through a back door. If unscientific theories are to be weighed, then I have one that is far more parsimonious than intelligent design. Universes are vacuum fluctuations, and our universe is observed to have life in it because of the weak anthropic principle. (Universes that don't have life in them are never observed.)

Answer 3

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Answer 4

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess built on observation. It’s a rational explanation of an event or phenomenon based upon what is observed. It has not been proved. A hypothesis can be proved or disproved by experimentation or observation.

Fact - A scientific fact is an observation, verifiable evidence, or the result of experiments that can be repeated.

Theory - A scientific theory attempts to explain the facts, evidence, and results in a way that they all fit together.

Law - The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

To sum up, a fact is something that can not be disputed, a law describes the facts, and a theory explains the facts. A theory can never become a law.

Answer 5

For those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

And for those who say Intelligent Design is not empirically testable and doesn't makes predictions, check this out: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html#more

And here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

Now, what about evolution? Evolution is so “plastic” that it can be expanded to fit any data. Even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution.

As Dr. Michael G. Houts said, “This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of 'convergent evolution.' No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.

One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.”

Answer 6

Stephen J. Gould put it far more elegantly than I ever could...:

"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. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

By this definition, Intelligent Design is merely wild-eyed speculation, not a scientific theory.

Answer 7

A scientific theory has to make predictions which are testable. Intelligent Design was a valid scientific theory for a brief period of time, because it made the testable prediction that a partial eye had no reproductive advantage. That has since been shown to be false, so ID is no longer a valid scientific theory.

Evolution makes testable predictions as well, such as speciation in isolated enviornments, and it keeps passing the tests in both the lab and nature.

Answer 8

A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community is considered a scientific theory. Evolution is a processs by which something passes to a different stage or develops into something else.

Answer 9

It's a model of the universe, or an element thereof, which is consistent with all available data and can be used to make accurate predictions.
Intelligent design does not fit that definition, evolution by natural selection does.

Answer 10

Why is it when I ask a science, logic, or math question...all the atheists yell at me that it is in the wrong section? But when an atheist asks one...because it supports your arguments...all the atheists flock? A little double standard going on here? Nah...not by atheists...that would make them like fundamentalist...and we all know they are NOTHING alike :)


Anyway, you know what a scientific theory is. Quit trying to trick people ;)