Evolution - it`s only a theory! (Not!)

@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
November 20, 2018 6:24am CST
People who try to discredit the theory of evolution, preferring instead to rely on the Book of Genesis, will often say: “But it’s only a theory”. The implication is that it is unreliable and unproven and thus no more worthy of trust than the creationist view that they espouse. However, what they are doing is misunderstanding what the word “theory” means. To them, something that is a theory is, by definition, “theoretical”. It is a back of the envelope idea, something thought up as an explanation that is no more than a thought and without any firm evidence to back it up. Another word meaning the same thing would be “hypothesis”. That is indeed one meaning of “theory” but it is not the only meaning. To a scientist, a theory is a set of ideas that constitutes an explanation of how something works. It is the next stage beyond the hypothesis because it incorporates the evidence that any reasonable person would accept. It is the generally accepted account of the phenomenon in question, incorporating the laws and principles that govern what is known and observed. There are many theories of the latter kind. The theory of gravity is one such, in that it is an explanation of how large masses exert attractive forces on smaller masses. Another is the heliocentric theory that describes how the sun sits at the centre of the solar system and the planets move round it in their orbits. Neither of these theories can be described as unproven hypotheses, although this might well have been the case some centuries ago. When Galileo advanced the heliocentric theory of Copernicus he was thought to be a dangerous radical whose thinking was disputed because it challenged the teaching of the Church. The theory of evolution has also been challenged because it is thought in some circles to be contrary to religious teaching. The “only a theory” jibe is therefore thrown at it just as it was at Galileo’s theory. However, just as the heliocentric theory has moved from the “hypothesis” meaning of the word to that of “accepted explanation”, so has the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it has long moved beyond being a hypothesis, although this was not the case when Charles Darwin first proposed it. It is now a theory that is accepted as fact in the same way that the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity is accepted as fact. To say “only a theory” implies that there is something better than a theory, and that if evolution was worth its salt it would be this something else. However, outside the world of mathematics there is nothing better. Absolute proof of anything is impossible unless the terms are defined so rigorously as to be make proof inevitable, as happens with mathematical statements and formulae. In the real world there are plenty of accepted facts, but they are encased in what are conventionally called theories. They are proven for all practical purposes and are therefore completely reliable. There is nothing more factual and reliable that a well-formulated theory, in the non-hypothesis sense, and evolution is one such.
6 people like this
6 responses
@Jackalyn (7559)
• Oxford, England
20 Nov 18
I speak here as one with a good degree in Anthropology. One of the first things you are told as a student is that if it is a THEORY it is a THEORY and not a 100% proven fact. This is true of most things pertaining to physical anthropology. We can surmise certain things, but not prove them as fact. Therefore they are theory. This is why it is referred to as the THEORY and not the fact of evolution. I studied my degree as a Christian in a secular environment and can remember when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax, or rather, when a lecturer entered the room and explained it was. Every single thing presented to us was prefaced with "we think that, or it seems that." You can draw and animal (or a pottery pot from a fragment, it is true, but you cannot coat and animal and one thing that kept happening was the carbon dating of things got revised a lot. My lecturers were usually part of Oxford University and I had the privelege of being able to study in the anthropology institute and attend the lectures. I chose social anthropology, but at my University you had to do the physical side as well. At best, one can choose the most likely explanation and nobody disputes that we have evidence of evolution of animals, but never in a mlllion years will the theory of evolution explain the mathematical premis on which everything it built, why we have emotions, feeings and spirtual awareness or how beauty evolved over ugliness or how or why we can percieve beauty. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years, so to think of 24/7 as the time span of creation may be misleading anyway, but even after acheiving that degree, I remain convinced. God is the creator of the world and in some mysterious way, the Word of God (did you know that Word is Jesus right there in Genesis 1.1.He is still in the business of human evolvement today. He makes lives new.
6 people like this
@Jackalyn (7559)
• Oxford, England
20 Nov 18
@indexer I will agree with those of thevmost prestigious University in the world.A theory is never proven fact.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
20 Nov 18
I am amazed to hear that there are still lecturers at prestigious universities who are so profoundly ignorant! The planets go round the Sun. Things fall to the ground if you drop them. The reasons why things happen are because of theories - Heliocentric and Gravity in these cases. Are they unproven? Of course not! The same applies to Evolution, which really does explain everything about life. Please consult a dictionary and look up the word "theory". I have tried to explain the different meanings in my article, but maybe if you read it in the Oxford English you might be more ready to accept it!
1 person likes this
@Daelii (5619)
• United States
20 Nov 18
I love this answer!!! In one of my earlier earth science courses my professor did an entire lecture over the conflicts of science and religion. As an idea, he asked us to not view gods 1 day as 1 earth day. If we believe god, then how is his day based on the human creation of time for a planet he created? All planets have a different amount of time that equals a day on that planet! So what if days were an easy way to explain time for people who did not have a basic education similar to what we learn now a days? So then break down the steps of creating the universe... And it does line up with the current scientific view of how the universe formed. Its just a more poetic story.
3 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
20 Nov 18
@Jackalyn explains it well, a theory is not something 100% proven. There are still missing links/holes to prove, for example, that ancestors of humans were monkeys. These holes are slowly filled by new discoveries tending to make us believe that the evolution theory is a good theory and the right one, but we may or may not find all the missing links... The main problem is that the filiation is not as linear as Darwin was thinking. There had been various humanoids, some disappeared, some cross-bred, and it is a kind of jungle where it is still difficult to have 100% certainties.
3 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
20 Nov 18
Yes - a theory can be 100% proven! What about the Theory of Gravity for example? You must not be confused by the two quite different meanings of the word "theory". Yes, there is still much to be discovered, but the basic science is extremely sound. You must also appreciate that Evolution talks about "common ancestors" - humans did not evolve from monkeys, but monkeys, apes and humans all evolved from a common ancestor.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
20 Nov 18
@indexer A part of Einstein theory of gravity was seriously challenged in 2013 by a discovery done in the Andromeda galaxy by the 15 years old son of an astrophysician of the Strasbourg observatory, Neil Ibata. Since they published an article in Nature, there is now a lot of "speculative" quantum theories of gravity published in Scientific reviews. I like your certainties. Humans are primates sharing 98% of DNA with chimpanzees. They are monkeys. But finding the filiation is a hard task, because, like I wrote, it is not linear. The "common ancestor" will perhaps never be found.
3 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
20 Nov 18
@topffer The chances are against most common ancestors being found, if by "found" you mean an actual fossil turning up. Chimpanzees are apes - no tails!
1 person likes this
@marguicha (215389)
• Chile
20 Nov 18
Very good post. I agree. Where did you get it?
3 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
20 Nov 18
All my own work, based on reading various sources and using common sense!
2 people like this
@marguicha (215389)
• Chile
21 Nov 18
@indexer Congratulations! And I agree.
@xFiacre (12595)
• Ireland
20 Nov 18
@indexer If only there were some living, reliable eye witnesses to it all happening!! Although there are Christians who believe in a literal 6 day creation, most don't. The reformers (Calvin etc) don't seem to have had a problem with things having evolved over a very long period of time. They, quite sensibly, were more concerned about the state of humanity as it currently was in their day without fussing too much about we got here. I think that's the position that most Christians take, although those who don't are the ones who shout loudest.
2 people like this
@Jackalyn (7559)
• Oxford, England
20 Nov 18
@sh2ker I used to be an atheist and shouted very loudly till God shut me up!!
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
20 Nov 18
Agreed - especially with your last point!
@sh2ker (503)
• Bury, England
20 Nov 18
I’m going to use the phrase of those who have literal interpretation of the bible “shouting the loudest” if you don’t mind.As I am a Christian and I find when debating with atheists that they will expect me to have a creationist literal interpretation of everything.
@aureliah (24319)
• Kenya
21 Nov 18
I have seen these explanation as I'm studying Research Methods. Would theory also mean a continuing research?
@Daelii (5619)
• United States
20 Nov 18
I don't see how science contradicts religious beliefs. If anything, I feel science supports it. In short, I feel the first book of the bible is a watered down version of the scientific explanation. Yet not really watered down, an artsy way with deep meaning. Something all people can understand. Look at the steps... First came water then life. Science says life came from the oceans. There are two stories of creation of man in the bible. Science says at least three humanoid types went into making modern humans. Why is it hard to believe that God created life and over time it developed and changed? Its still changing.
2 people like this
@Daelii (5619)
• United States
20 Nov 18
@sh2ker I talked about that in my comment to @Jackalyn response in this thread!
1 person likes this
@sh2ker (503)
• Bury, England
20 Nov 18
@Daelii I have read your post.I don’t think the different length of days in the universe is the reason creation is described the way it is.I think it is more metaphor for creation that would be easy to understand but there being deeper knowledge for us to discover. It also serves as a parable showing the importance of rest.
1 person likes this
@sh2ker (503)
• Bury, England
20 Nov 18
That is difficult for most creationists to believe as it doesn’t fit with a literal interpretation of the bible.For example the earth being created in 7 days.