Richard Dawkins: Evolution is a fact

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Evolution is a difficult topic. Evolution happens to be both a scientific theory and a fact. We can see evolution in our short history - it occurs and is testable. The scientific theory of evolution deals with the origin of all species.

Does that make sense? For instance we have seen bacteria evolve before our very eyes - therefore evolution is a fact. Putting the hypothesis of how current species evolved from ancient ones to the test - that is the scientific theory of evolution.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Theory in science basically means fact. Evolution will always be a theory. A million years from now it will still be a theory, ie a fact.

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

I mentioned something similar in a GW thread. Scientific theory does not equal layman's theory. The closest scientific term to the layman's theory is hypothesis.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

PS. Its actually possible to support both creationism and evolution.

[Captain Oates 911]

Ironically enough, a glance at US TV shows that evolution is now running in reverse

150 years ago, the intelligencia had good jobs/businesses and sanitary conditions and had large families who lived to reproduce

All the slack-jawed underclass swilled gin , smoked cigs, ate horrible stuff and lived like pigs and died at 29 to 39. Many of their children died in infancy so did not reproduce. If they did survive, they were sent into mass killing wars which thinned them out more

Nowadays, the educated have small families via birth control and being careful, while the uneducated hordes breed like rabbits - the result is that succeeeding generations are bred from the most stupid of the prior generation and evolution is running in reverse

The outcome is pretty easy to predict with war and starvation reducing the population so that only poppy eyed grey bearded survivalists living on amountain in Idaho will survive. As they typically live alone or with female crazies over child bearing age, they cannot reproduce and they too will die out when their time comes

The likes of Perry and Bush and Palin will be seen as clever and voted in repeatedly and wars will increase accordingly

prior to the extinction. President Bachman will have her finger on the red button when big G sends her a message by causing her dog to die, that she should erase the whole world with that red button

Edited August 30, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Captain Oates 911]

PS. Its actually possible to support both creationism and evolution.

What - like god creates a unicellular protozoa 3.5 bill years ago and winds it up and sets it off to see what will evolve later while she waits patiently ?

That's a great theory and would work in Colorado/Texas/Oklahoma

However it is a bloody stupid theory and the rest of the world put this debate to bed 100 years ago.

Living in the US is like living in an intellectual museum. If it rained more and the gas/car prices went up, I would be out of here pronto if not sooner coz it's getting to me now.

I am amazed the flat earth society doesnt have its headquarters in Clearwater FL

Edited August 30, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Captain Oates 911]

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN CREATONISM, AND THAT SARAH PALIN AND RICK PERRY ARE CLEVER, MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN >>>

the flat earth society

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What - like god creates a unicellular protozoa 3.5 bill years ago and winds it up and sets it off to see what will evolve later while she waits patiently ?

That's a great theory and would work in Colorado/Texas/Oklahoma

However it is a bloody stupid theory and the rest of the world put this debate to bed 100 years ago.

Living in the US is like living in an intellectual museum. If it rained more and the gas/car prices went up, I would be out of here pronto if not sooner coz it's getting to me now.

I am amazed the flat earth society doesnt have its headquarters in Clearwater FL

Much further back. Galaxies are spreading further apart and its generally accepted as a result there must have been some sort of beginning.

[Dakine10 5,452]

What - like god creates a unicellular protozoa 3.5 bill years ago and winds it up and sets it off to see what will evolve later while she waits patiently ?

That's a great theory and would work in Colorado/Texas/Oklahoma

However it is a bloody stupid theory and the rest of the world put this debate to bed 100 years ago.

Living in the US is like living in an intellectual museum. If it rained more and the gas/car prices went up, I would be out of here pronto if not sooner coz it's getting to me now.

I am amazed the flat earth society doesnt have its headquarters in Clearwater FL

Why Colorado? Colorado has a law on the books that prohits the use of any public funds to teach any form of religious creationism.

The biggest religious controversy here lately was a lady truck driver (from Montana) who freaked out and destroyed a painting that depicted Jesus as a homosexual. The actual controversy was mostly over how she got a crowbar past the museum security staff.

[BishopM 114]

This is not supposition, or rumor, or fantasy, or heresy, or possibility. Call it theory, again in the sense that gravity is theory. The fact is, it is fact.

Brother Scandal, as usual, has posted a well thought out response. I agree with his statement and personally found a found a real beauty in the part which I have highlighted in his statement above.

In short, please don't believe that all Christians believe in Creationism...and don't for a moment think that we discount science as 'heresy'.

Blessings,

BishopM

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good theories are usually not “wrong”, even when

superseded... they are incomplete

http://mica-vw.org/wiki/images/1/17/Wrong.pdf

Facts are things to be determined by juries. Theories are ideas presented by learned men. Theories are not facts, just the best guess as to the nature of the world around us based on the evidence as it is known. Facts and theories have two things in common: 1) Both are based on the evidence currently at hand; and 2) Both are subject to change when new evidence is presented.

[웃 910]

Facts are things to be determined by juries. Theories are ideas presented by learned men. Theories are not facts, just the best guess as to the nature of the world around us based on the evidence as it is known. Facts and theories have two things in common: 1) Both are based on the evidence currently at hand; and 2) Both are subject to change when new evidence is presented.

Thanks Dr. Perv

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES

The difference between a "law" and a "theory" often confuses people. This happens, in part, because even among scientists there can be different usage of these terms. Of course, to the general public, these terms have very different meanings and connotations. I suggest that you look up the definitions of both words in any English dictionary. As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.

Presumably the acceptance of laws/theories also applies across disciplines, although most "Laws" or "Theories" are discipline specific. I can't think of law or theory that really transcends all disciplines per se; there is, as of yet, no "Unified Law (or Theory) of Everything." Most scientists aren't trained to critically analyze the pros and cons of laws or theories outside our field. For example, biologists usually aren't qualified (by training) to critique the "Theory of Relativity" or "The Atomic Theory". I don't think a physicist, chemist or engineer (by training) is qualified to discuss the details of the "Theory of Evolution" or the "Cell Theory" either.

As far as "detractors", the nature of science is to question things, nothing is (or should be) sacrosanct. But, this does not necessarily mean that just because someone questions a law (or theory) that the law/theory in question is wrong. Was Einstein a detractor of Newton when he showed that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything (wasn't that why quantum mechanics came into existence)? Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so!! If certain aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g., natural selection, gradualism) has "detractors" (and I mean among people who are qualified to argue about it -- among biologists), does that mean natural selection (or the idea of biological evolution in general) is wrong? NO!! Scientific knowledge is strengthened by people questioning what is or has been accepted.

http://science.kenne...3380theory.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES

Interesting source:

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia

http://community.kennesaw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=467

Edited August 31, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Interesting source:

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia

http://community.kennesaw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=467

The other KSU.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Kent State? Kansas State? Kentucky State? King Said University?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv