Can you name a scientific theory that is not 'just a theory'?

Question

I am not convinced there is one, but lots of people out there seem to think there is. Now is your chance.

Evolution is often dismissed (in case you have not noticed) as 'just a theory'. Like ALL theories, or not?

If there are two categories in science, established 'facts', and provisional ideas which fall under the heading of 'just a theory', then the Creationist claim that evolution is 'just a theory', and by implication transitory, unproven and not worthy of consideration, carries some weight. Many of the answers here would seem to support this view, whether that was the intention of the writers or not.

Answer 1

Scientific postulates are called "theory" regardless of truth. Scientific theory assumes that we cannot know an answer completely, and if given evidence to the contrary, the theory can be altered in light of this. We can never know anything beyond a doubt, but we can attest to its accuracy by study and observation. Discounting something just because it is labeled a theory does a disservice to the argument against it.

Answer 2

As a research chemist--there are hypothesis and theories--these are ideas which give explanations for obsrvations. Some theories--like that involving gravity have been found to be true in such a fashion--as this theory is accepted as a natural law. There are likewise--theories that have been elevated to natural law--like entropy. If there is ever a single case where observations involving these laws are proved to be untrue--then the scientific community would have to refine these theories--change them or discard them. Creationism on the other hand is a theory which has been disproved and discredited--the only way for it to work is to suspend causality-and invoke the use of magic. Creationism is in conflict with the observations of the world around us. The main issue here is that when science finds a theory not to be true--they change or modify that theory to fit the facts--science is after all a search for truth--whatever that truth may be. Creationism on the otherhand seeks to change the facts to fit the theory. That is why there is such a rift between the two positions. One is intellectually honest, the other is not.

Answer 3

Gravity
Electricity
Relativity
Atomic

There are lots. The word theory in science is something used to explain the mechanism behind a known phenomena. Theories and scientific laws are functionally different things.

Added: A number of people mentioned Newton's laws. There are actually current papers that suggest the central idea that gravity is the same everywhere might be wrong. But anyhow a law describes behavior or fixed observations in a know set of parameters. It is a different thing that a theory.

As it applies to evolution, there is a law of fossil succession that applies and pretty much proves common decent, even if you have no idea about the mechanism.

Answer 4

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.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Answer 5

In science the term theory means an accepted a logically consistent set of explanations of a phenomenon or set of a phenomena that is extensively supported by repeatable experimental observation.

You clearly are using a more colloquial use of the term theory, because "just a theory" in a scientific sense would seem to go beyond what might in your context be considere d"just proof beyond any reasnable doubt".

In science the term hypothesis belongs to things open to doubt; the term theory beolngs to things where that doubt has been eliminated through confirmation.

Answer 6

Absolutely - positively NOT! There is nothing on this earth or in the Universe that does not undergo constant change. To think otherwise is foolish.

Theories help to understand what is understood today, but tomorrow something new is added and it then becomes an ongoing ever in question hypothesis. It is not - A god did it - end of story. You never question the weather - today it's nice outside - tomorrow it will rain, it changes - daily. It would be like saying it is always a perfect day. Change happens and so do theories - it's normal.

Answer 7

Go look up exactly what a scientific theory is.

It is not the same as the general usage of the word.


You may want to think about the fact that Einstein's Theory of relativity is more accurate than Newton's Laws of motion.

Answer 8

lol somehow this question makes no sense.

Scientific "theory" is just that: theory. What makes it more credible than the "proof" for believing in the tooth fairy, Elvis as an alien, and the boogie man is that it is far more credible.

Science is based upon disproving itself. Theology is not. That is the major difference between the two; and if I want to find out what the truth is more likely to be, I will pick the one that willingly adjusts itself to reality.

Answer 9

You, like almost every theist on this site, have no clue as to the difference between a scientific Theory, and the general use of the word. They are completely different and perhaps yet another piece of education you have missed out on.

Answer 10

Well, there are those scientific theories that have been disproven:

I.e. phlogiston, or Lamarck's theory of evolution through acquired characteristics (which, by the way, does work for mechanical systems of evolution).

I guess those theories could no longer be considered 'just a theory'.