Creationists who demand proof of evolution: How exactly does one prove a scientific theory?

Question

Also, are there any scientific theories that have gone from "confirmed" to "proven"? If not, why do you demand a different standard of verification for evolution?

Michelle: If you have a problem with scientific theories, do you use light switches? Do you trust them? They're based on circuit theory.
Do you fly in planes? They're based on a Newtonian theory of gravity.
Do you use medical treatment? It's based on germ theory.
If you don't trust scientific theories, why do you trust your life to so many of them?

Do you guys get the difference between proof and evidence? Scientific theories are confirmed through evidence. A scientific theory cannot be proven to be true, only confirmed to such a degree that doubting it would be absurd. Evolution has reached that stage.

Also, thanks to everybody who answered my original question about how one goes about proving a scientific theory. The number of responses to it was quite enlightening.

Answer 1

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

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 2

This is the problem these days. Every time scientists try to explain evolution in laymen's terms so that the masses may get even a tiny grasp of it, Christo-fascists take a step backward are start arguing semantics or demonstrating logical fallacy after fallacy that we have to waste time explaining dubious things such as the scientific method or how to construct a reasonable argument.

Top Creationists Logical Fallacies:

Argument from Misleading Definition: It is a fallacy (and usually an example of the equivocation fallacy) because words can have multiple meanings, sometimes quite at odds with each other, and because these meanings can change. Dictionaries, in particular, are often very conservative and do not reflect recent developments, whether cultural or scientific. The whole “it’s just a theory!” argument falls under this category. I won’t bother explaining this because the original poster did a fine job doing so.

Argument from Incredulity: "an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse." This is EXACTLY why any "irreducible complexity" argument is automatically a fallacy. Just because something is "too complex to wrap your head around how it was created" doesn't mean it is so. Under this same fallacy I can say psychics and magicians are real simply because their “tricks” are way too complicated and flashy to come from anything else besides the super-natural.

False idea of what "Occam's Razor" is: Occam's Razor is a logical law that states when deciding between competing theories of a phenomenon it is more likely that the simpler of explanations is the correct one. Christo-fascists take this to mean the "Goddidit" (being so simple as to be expressed in three simple words) is by default the more simple of explanations. This conclusion however says NOTHING of exactly HOW a phenomenon occurs, only WHO caused it to happen.

Fundamentalist Christians: Please take a few biology and critical thinking courses before you run your mouth off concerning topics like these and make the rest of us "more-rational" Christians look silly.


Thank You.

Answer 3

Faith, by way of its possess nature, does now not contain walk in the park or explanation. In reality, to have religion, you have got to be equipped to get up on your ideals within the face of explanation, even if they do not make feel. That's what religion is- it manner you are not looking for whatever demonstrated to you. You are inclined to consider it for no different purpose than believe for your ideals. Evolution operates on a systematic premise. On one hand, it does require proof and common sense to end up, due to the fact that having "religion" in an unproven technology is in opposition to the inspiration of technology within the first position. For this alternate off, nevertheless, it's extra logical, and the men and women who comply with it more commonly have purpose to take action. It may be taken severely in medical suggestion, while creationism is certainly not *particularly* considered on any medium except a devout debate. You recognise? in case you weigh the 2 in opposition to each and every different, common sense does overpower religion. But that's difficult for men and women who had been born trustworthy to realize. You have got to realize that they don't see matters the equal means as secularists. That religion that you just criticize is the equal factor that makes it possible for them to maintain real to their ideals, and of their possess minds, their religion could as good be proof. It's a question of conditioning, now not common sense, is very nearly my factor.

Answer 4

Theory is not a bad word. In testing cores with zirconium (which emits the Helium nucleus) Robert gentry calculated what the concentration of Helium would be if the earth is 6000 years old, and what it would be if it were millions of years old, based on his best guess regarding creation and migration of the element. When he got the core, he measured it. The number was very close to what he calculated it would be if the world is 6000 years old. If you are planning on storing radioactive material with a half life of thousands of years, the numbers might be important.

Answer 5

We prove scientific theory over and over again here.



A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another."


http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html

Answer 6

Until they stop treating it as irefutable and beyond criticism i'll continue to debate it.
If it isn't proved it shouldn't be treated as the only truth in public schools.
Those other sciences have been tested and are scientifically proven because they are observed-evolution is not observed and cannot be put on the same level as those examples you have mentioned.
I'd go look up a definition of science and of evolution before posting such ignorance again if i were you.

Answer 7

Evolution can be shown in a laboratory. However, in the course of history, how would one know there was never any genetic engineering involved, just evolution?

Say in a post-apocalypse era, a thousand years from now, will some believe those glow in the dark cats evolved that way?

Answer 8

Wait .... with all due respect, if there is a problem with demanding proof of evolution, are you saying it is not a proven fact? Because by demanding proof of God's existence, non-believers are denying that he does... exist that is.

Answer 9

Yah, it's always amused me that Cretinists do NOT require the same level of proof to the Theory of Creationism.
.

Answer 10

With all of the fossil evidence, genetic evidence, ALL of that. It's as good as proven true, and they still reject it sadly.

The bible is about Jesus Christ, and creationists have turned it into something it's not. in turn, creating more divisiveness and making God look bad. Creationists just can't get it through their heads, they turn people away from God.