From time to time, you'll hear somebody say something like this: "Like creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design), evolution is just a theory!" The quote above implies that evolution and creationism hold the same scientific weight - which is absolutely, totally, and completely false. I get so tired of hearing it in a rational argument. So to help make sure people know what they are talking about, I am going to explain the reasoning behind my statement. First, a little background on how science works. Joe Scientist is out and about, making his observations. Suddenly, they all seem to fit together, and he comes up with a HYPOTHESIS. This hypothesis consists of a falsifiable prediction that Joe and other scientists can keep testing and refining. After many years of experimentation and evidence accumulation, if Joe's hypothesis is still not disproved, it will be elevated to the level of a scientific THEORY. At this point, it is regarded as almost fact in the scientific world; I say almost because if any contradicting evidence were to be found it could still be changed or disproven. Scientific theories include things like quantum physics, gravity, cells, evolution, etc. These all have been supported by OVERWHELMING bodies of evidence and have been behind many of today's modern marvels. So to recap, science goes: OBSERVATIONS >>> HYPOTHESIS >>> THEORY. On the other hand, in everyday vernacular, most people use the word theory to mean "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." This is where creationism fits in. It is extremely far from a scientific theory - it is a normal everyday theory. But could it be considered a scientific hypothesis, perhaps? The answer is no. Crucial to the definition of a hypothesis is the testable and falsifiable PREDICTION. Even if it could generate some sort of prediction, how could something like intelligent design ever be disproved? This is why creationism is NOT a science. So to sum up, evolution is a scientific theory, which by definition has loads and loads of evidence to support it. On the other hand, creationism is at best an everyday theory, and it can't even be considered science because there is no way to disprove it. So next time somebody implies that creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution, you can correct them.
Just to fire back at you. Due to the fact that Evolution is a theory and not solid fact you can't necessarily use it as fact. If you are close minded and say that evolution is backed up by research and close your mind to ideas and facts that expose flaws in the theory then you are not doing it justice. You Should ALWAYS question what you have been taught or else you can;t continue to learn. Remember the geocentric universe was once a theory which was proven wrong In the fields of chemistry physics and many more there have been theories that have been replaced much to the chagrin of those who held them as fact. The day scientists stop considering the possibility that they might be wrong is the day progress stops. Please keep that in mind and keep your mind open to possibilities
You are 100% correct. The point of my post was not that the theory of evolution is completely right and never will be disproved. It was that intelligent design/creationism CANNOT be discussed as if it commands the same respect as evolution. Although actually, the PROCESS of evolution can be considered fact. For example, if you take a plate of bacteria, expose it to various antibiotics and environmental changes, you will witness evolution in action. Conversely, the THEORY of evolution is simply our best attempt to explain life as we know it based on the abundant evidence around us. And it can be held in the same esteem as the theories of gravity, cell theory, etc. And nobody doubts that jumping off a tall building is a bad idea. But, again, it is WAY, way above creationism, which is NOT a scientific theory at all.
Theory is backed with empirical evidence. Gravity is a theory. A geocentric universe is speculation. I agree that skepticism and continued experimentation is a must in science. Hell, that's mostly what science is. BoP, I feel I may have misunderstood your point. If that is the case, I respectfully apologize.
That is my point along with be open minded. Basically I am saying even if something is a widely supported theory you should be open to other possibilities. Even if you don't believe the ideas others put forward accept that it they are possibilities. Remember: ANYTHING is possible, some things are just more probable.
I just wanted to add that a lot of people seem to misunderstand the difference between laws and theories. Theories don't get "promotions" to laws. A law is something that has been proven through repeated successful testing, and example would be Newton's laws (when dealing with Newtonian physics) A theory is an idea that ties several observed occurrences together. The theory of gravity for example, we see that mass affects the force of gravity, so we've developed a theory to explain why this might be. They aren't part of any hierarchal structure, as some think. Hundreds of years ago, people could notice that gravity pulls down, so gravity pulling down could be considered a law, but until fairly recently, no theory had been made to explain why this was.
You know what's funny? How if a small new, never before known religion springs up, the larger religions call it a cult... But didn't they start out as a cult too? And... BoP, didn't I use the term close-minded with my Ghosts thread? And as you said BoP, some things are more probable and if you think about it, Evolution makes sense. First off, what is there that shoots the theory down?
