Just a theory

[Tweefo]

One often hear "It is just a theory" when trying to explain evolution. A way past this is to point out that no, it is a scientific theory, and therefore it's build on evidence. (In this case, overwhelmingly good evidence) The creationist story is "just a theory". It does not have evidence behind it, is build on myth and every religion's story/myth is different from the others.

[wandapec]

"It is just a theory"

I would add that it is also fact. Here is an explanation on the Talking Origins websiteEvolution is a Fact and a Theory and another on by Stephen Jay Gould called Evolution as Fact and Theory

The "evolution is just a theory" approach is so often used by those who haven't got the slightest clue as to what evolution is or is about! These are the same people that say "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

[bluegray V]

That the earth is not flat was also just a theory, until good proof came along and it became fact. Not many people will now dare call that just a theory but there are still people who do...

@wandapec
Please check your links - there are some extra http's in there again

[wandapec]

Thanks bluegray V.

Let's try that again.....

I would add that it is also fact. Here is an explanation on the Talking Origins website Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and another on by Stephen Jay Gould called Evolution as Fact and Theory

The "evolution is just a theory" approach is so often used by those who haven't got the slightest clue as to what evolution is or is about! These are the same people that say "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

That should be better!

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

That the earth is not flat was also just a theory, until good proof came along and it became fact.

I would add that it is also fact.

If we are talking in lay-terms then yes, I agree.  If this was a discussion in the the stricter terms of a scientific lexicon, then I can't agree.  In science we progress from observations of phenomena (gathered observational facts) to developing an hypothesis (a guess at why the facts are related, what they mean) to testing, confirming via predictions and peer-reviewing the hypothesis until at a point it becomes a theory.

A theory never becomes fact (and by that I mean the concept behind the scientific use of the word "theory" can never change to what scientists see as facts).  The reason is that any theory is falsifiable, and if it were not falsifiable then it would not be a theory.  Equally we can say that facts are not falsifiable, if you can think of a way that a fact can be falsifiable then you really have a theory.

The Earth is round - theory.
The Earth travels around the Sun every +/- 365,25 days - theory.
Gravity attracts objects of any mass together - theory.
These are all falsifiable.

Scientists are not at all turned-on by facts, not in the least.  Their aim is not to gather facts about the Universe and its workings.  The aim of science is to develop theories which explain facts.  If their goal was anything else then we would have thousand volume textbooks on physics which read as follows...

The facts about gravity

• When a blue rubber ball roughly 15cm in diameter is released at a height of 1 metre above the ground it drops towards the ground and makes contact.
• When a red rubber ball roughly 15cm in diameter is released at a height of 1 metre above the ground it drops towards the ground and makes contact.
• When a green rubber ball roughly 15cm in diameter is released at a height of 1 metre above the ground it drops towards the ground and makes contact.
• ...

Science doesn't want all the facts, science wants to explain the facts.

[Anacoluthon64]

Aye, ArgumentumAdHominem, science is a quest for ever more comprehensive unifying principles that give a mechanistic account of observable phenomena.

But what I think is meant by the saying “evolution is a theory and a fact” is that it consists, on the one hand, of a body of observed phenomena (i.e. the “facts”), which, on the other hand, are coherently explained by evolutionary principles such as natural selection, genetic variation, etc. (i.e. the “theory”).  In other words, “theory and fact” is not to be read as “evolution = theory = fact” but as “evolution = theory + fact.”

'Luthon64

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

In other words, "theory and fact" is not to be read as "evolution = theory = fact" but as "evolution = theory + fact."

Completely agree.  I don't know if you think that's how I was reading it but I was not.  I only wanted to highlight the disjunction between the common use of the terms "theory" and "fact" with the scientific use of the terms.

Language	Word	Meaning
Standard English	Theory	Supposition, idea
Science	Theory	A complete model for the explanation of a phenomenon (or phenomena) which has been accepted by scientists as the best explanation of that (those) phenomenon (/na)
Standard English	Fact	Indisputable knowledge, truth
Science	Fact	An observation of the world, a recorded happening

Notice how the meaning of "fact" = "truth" can lead to so many misunderstandings because it appears to us, the users of Standard English, that the theory of evolution isn't a "fact" (standard sense), isn't the truth. Of course this is the leverage point into which it is easy to get the crowbar of "... on the other hand here is a book that is called The Truth ... what more can you ask for?"

I hope I've made myself clear.  I'm trying (I know I am, and so does my family) but I need to let you know that I don't disagree, I'm just trying to point-out where confusion comes in, maybe that is why I sound so confused?

[Anacoluthon64]

Completely agree.  I don't know if you think that's how I was reading it but I was not.  I only wanted to highlight the disjunction between the common use of the terms "theory" and "fact" with the scientific use of the terms.

Okay then, no problem, though I must confess that the identified misreading is the flavour I took from your prior post.

As for our “trying” and our families’ take thereon, that I think is a double entendred condition that we sticklers for details and pedants are prisoner to… 

'Luthon64

[scienceteacherinexile]

The Evolution as fact and theory has been discussed a lot in the blogosphere lately.
If I may add my view on this:

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it has been demonstrated in the lab (mostly with bacteria).

Evolution as a theory is, of course, the over-arching explanation for the mountains of facts that grows all the time.  And yes it gets stronger the more we discover in spite of what many creationists will claim.

This, I think, is what has lead to the macro/micro evolution debates.  The Creationists always denied evolution outright.  When it was demonstrated in the lab, they had to change their tune to say that they accept micro evolution, but not macro evolution.  That is that a bacterial line may evolve resistance to an antibiotic for example, but bacteria cannot evolve into another species.

And of course "the evil biologist say that just because they can show this tiny step in the lab, that it proves common descent, and that is the only evidence they can provide".  Thus, allowing them to ignore the mountain mentioned earlier.

[wandapec]

The Creationists always denied evolution outright.

I watched this video earlier in the week - Miseducation by the creationists. It's about a course taught by creationists. PZ Myers briefly describes how pathetic their attempt are at teaching the kids about "what the real truth is".

[johanvz]

A theory never becomes fact (and by that I mean the concept behind the scientific use of the word "theory" can never change to what scientists see as facts).  The reason is that any theory is falsifiable, and if it were not falsifiable then it would not be a theory.  Equally we can say that facts are not falsifiable, if you can think of a way that a fact can be falsifiable then you really have a theory.
...
Science doesn't want all the facts, science wants to explain the facts.

The above is a extremely important underlying principle of science and beautifully articulated by ArgumentumAdHominem.

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it has been demonstrated in the lab (mostly with bacteria).

Even in this case evolution would still not be a fact. If objective proof of a god meddling in the Petri dish could be found, scientist would accept this. A theist will never accept that his god facts are wrong.

But, this shows the difference between religion and science. Religion deals only with “facts”. These facts are not based on any observation or logic, they can never be understood or challenged. They just are…

Science is always open to change. New observations can falsify existing theories, but that is ok. In the end we understand our world better.

Johan

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

The above is a extremely important underlying principle of science and beautifully articulated by ArgumentumAdHominem.

Thanks,  but I don't think that I did.

Science is always open to change. New observations can falsify existing theories, but that is ok. In the end we understand our world better.

Excellent synopsis of Popper's falsificationism (I am a Popper fan).  But keep in mind that falsification is a principle behind theories but in practice does not "bring down" a theory.  How the theory adapts to falsification is the deciding criteria; if it becomes degenerative then it is a failed theory but if it becomes more robust and better then it is a progressive theory. These are the principles of Lakatos' Research Programmes (I am a bigger Lakatos fan).

Remember that Newtonian physics was falsified when the motion of the planets were observed.  Newton explained that the discrepancies in the plants' motion was caused by an as-yet undiscovered planet (Uranus) adding another variable to the complex gravitational interaction going-on up there.  This was seen at the time as ad-hoc revisioning to sidestep falsification (degenerative - calling for invisible, unverifiable causes).  It wasn't until a few decades later that Newton was vindicated, thank the pope that he didn't abandon his theory due to falsification.  Lakatos saw this as a falsification of one of the "protective belts" of his theory but not the theory itself which is why Newton pressed-on with it and it ultimately survived.

Something similar happened to the theory of evolution with the 23 chromosomes of homo-sapiens versus the 24 chromosomes of all other apes.  The explanation of why this didn't bring down the theory is beautifully explained in this documentary.

Evolution can be falsified, but falsification probably won't destroy the theory.

I fell in love with the Philosophy of Science last year when it was one of my study modules.

[Anacoluthon64]

Even the great, archetypal scientist himself was not broken from the ideal Popperian mould.  When asked what he would do if Arthur Eddington’s observation of light bending by the sun during an eclipse failed to agree with the predictions of General Relativity, Einstein replied, “Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct!”

Generally, a scientific theory that has shown promise in the past will be salvaged through patching, darning and mending to accommodate discordant evidence until either a cleverer, more comprehensive theory comes along, or the sheer volume of discordant evidence is no longer tolerable.  The latter occurrence is rare and signals a deep crisis in knowledge marked by much tapping in the dark.  The period in medical science between “unbalanced humours” and “germ theory” was one such.

'Luthon64

[johanvz]

Evolution can be falsified, but falsification probably won't destroy the theory.

I agree, the probability of evolution being completely falsified is extremely slim. The point I wanted to make is that science will always keep the door open.

Thanks for the Lakatos link. I have a bit of reading to do.

[pawpaw1000]

www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14

http://www.worldbydesign.org/articles/index.html

this one you have to see:

http://www.worldbydesign.org/articles/implications/implic002.html

AND THIS ONE IS ESSENTIAL:

http://www.creationism.org/dragons/index.htm

lets see what you have to say now...