is evolution a scientific theory?

[brokensymmetry]

One of the routes a lot of creationists take is to deny that evolution is a scientific theory. Why? They argue that a theory about origins could never be scientific because it isn't repeatable. Now how they do that and then on the other hand want ID or straight up biblical creationism presented to children is another question.

My question is this. What makes evolution a scientific theory? What makes a theory scientific? Is there is a straightforward criterion? Do intentions matter in science?

I don't think there is. We count a lot of things as science that we can't 'repeat' in the lab, such as astronomy. Throwing that out the window is foolish and ignores the enormous predictive power of these sorts of observationally based sciences.

Evolution is based not only on inference from the fossil record and other lines of evidence, but on direct observation of evolution happening in the lab and in nature and extrapolating that the same physical processes are at work. What evolution opponents really want is someone to produce a cat from a flea in the lab, or they won't be satisfied. That this is a ridiculous sort of request is precisely what they are counting on so that they can cling to their views. The fact is that evolution has made specific predictions, has falsifiability criteria, and involves a clear physical model of how it proceeds. ID has none of this.

So what counts as science? I think this is something that you know when you see it. It involves careful, quantitative reasoning about the world, an understanding of what counts as evidence for and against- with specific statistical analysis to be able to determine a probability of the model being true or false. There's a sense of a better theory making lots of specific predictions about how the world ought to look, and if it makes predictions about what we have not discovered yet, all the better. All of these things evolution has. The problem is, no matter how you form this there will be some exception to a part of the definition. I suggest using ID as a key example of a pseudo-science to help winnow out sloppy, unclear thinking from the sorts of scientific theories that will help us progress in our understanding of the world.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of its various mechanisms.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

A scientific theory is an explanation for observed phenomenon. It also makes predictions.

Evolution explains the variety of organisms and it makes various predictions such as where certain fossils should be or certain characteristics of genes(such as the prediction of the fused chromosomes in humans before it was actually observed).

So yeah, it's a scientific theory.

 

[Parsimony]

Theory of common descent makes a lot of predictions which can be tested and potentially falsified. That makes evolution scientific.

 

[viole]

One of the routes a lot of creationists take is to deny that evolution is a scientific theory. Why? They argue that a theory about origins could never be scientific because it isn't repeatable. Now how they do that and then on the other hand want ID or straight up biblical creationism presented to children is another question.

My question is this. What makes evolution a scientific theory? What makes a theory scientific? Is there is a straightforward criterion? Do intentions matter in science?

I don't think there is. We count a lot of things as science that we can't 'repeat' in the lab, such as astronomy. Throwing that out the window is foolish and ignores the enormous predictive power of these sorts of observationally based sciences.

Evolution is based not only on inference from the fossil record and other lines of evidence, but on direct observation of evolution happening in the lab and in nature and extrapolating that the same physical processes are at work. What evolution opponents really want is someone to produce a cat from a flea in the lab, or they won't be satisfied. That this is a ridiculous sort of request is precisely what they are counting on so that they can cling to their views. The fact is that evolution has made specific predictions, has falsifiability criteria, and involves a clear physical model of how it proceeds. ID has none of this.

So what counts as science? I think this is something that you know when you see it. It involves careful, quantitative reasoning about the world, an understanding of what counts as evidence for and against- with specific statistical analysis to be able to determine a probability of the model being true or false. There's a sense of a better theory making lots of specific predictions about how the world ought to look, and if it makes predictions about what we have not discovered yet, all the better. All of these things evolution has. The problem is, no matter how you form this there will be some exception to a part of the definition. I suggest using ID as a key example of a pseudo-science to help winnow out sloppy, unclear thinking from the sorts of scientific theories that will help us progress in our understanding of the world.

Scientific = what does not contradict my book
Not scientific = what does contradict my book

No matter that the methods used are the same.

Ergo, we can use my book as a replacement of K. Popper criteria of what constitutes the scientific process.

What could be simpler?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Some like to throw around the word theory as if it means pure speculation. In science this isn't the case. A solid science theory is based on facts to the point that it can accurately predict what other facts we will find. Speculation in itself can't do it without verifiable facts to back it.

 

[Amechania]

What evolution opponents really want is someone to produce a cat from a flea in the lab, or they won't be satisfied. That this is a ridiculous sort of request is precisely what they are counting on so that they can cling to their views.

I doubt even a flea-cat would convince creationists. This would be seen as an artificial creation by man in imitation of God and not the result of natural selection.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I doubt even a flea-cat would convince creationists. This would be seen as an artificial creation by man in imitation of God and not the result of natural selection.

lol! poor flea-cat. But yeah, I think you are likely correct. With someone whose goal it is to manipulate whatever evidence you throw at them to protect some enshrined beliefs nothing will ever seem adequate.

That raises interesting questions for me about intention and scientific activity.

 

[sun rise]

This false question is based on a misunderstanding about how science works. I've not posted enough to provide links yet so here's a quick overview.

Without writing a book, the short answer is that science explains the world as we find it by looking at real evidence and includes a fundamental principle that any explanation can be proven wrong or incomplete by further evidence.

To disbelieve in evolution, you necessarily logically have to disbelieve in physics, chemistry and biology because evolution depends on evidence from all three disciplines.

I would agree with those who assert "God is who. Evolution is how" because that position does not deny science. Instead that position argues that the laws of the universe were created by God in such a way that life came into existence and that developed eventually into human beings.

 

[brokensymmetry]

This false question is based on a misunderstanding about how science works. I've not posted enough to provide links yet so here's a quick overview.

Without writing a book, the short answer is that science explains the world as we find it by looking at real evidence and includes a fundamental principle that any explanation can be proven wrong or incomplete by further evidence.

To disbelieve in evolution, you necessarily logically have to disbelieve in physics, chemistry and biology because evolution depends on evidence from all three disciplines.

I would agree with those who assert "God is who. Evolution is how" because that position does not deny science. Instead that position argues that the laws of the universe were created by God in such a way that life came into existence and that developed eventually into human beings.

It would be helpful if you bothered to read the posts to which you are responding, and not just assume you know the content based on the title.

 

[Sunstone]

It would be helpful if you bothered to read the posts to which you are responding, and not just assume you know the content based on the title.

I'm almost certain that reading the posts before responding violates some Forum rule because it is done so infrequently.

 

[Sunstone]

Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of its various mechanisms.

An often overlooked truth.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of its various mechanisms.

Exactly.

It's twofold, like all sciences. There's a part of fact, and a part of explanation (theory). Evolution contains facts (fossil record that shows change, genetics, etc), and theory that explains how and why those changes happens (and some of those explanations are actually mathematical).

 

[Sunstone]

My question is this. What makes evolution a scientific theory? What makes a theory scientific? Is there is a straightforward criterion? Do intentions matter in science?

I think the principle of intersubjective verifiability is one of the deepest roots of the sciences, and that, properly understood, the various methods and procedures of the sciences logically unfold from that principle.

There may be deeper roots -- such as in the laws of logic -- but to my thinking, intersubjective verifiability is the watershed between science and other forms of inquiry.

Intersubjective verifiability, in essence, is the principle of verifying something by two or more people or "subjects". Doesn't sound like much at first, does it? However, I think most or all scientific methods and procedures can either be deduced or are indicated by it.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Exactly.

It's twofold, like all sciences. There's a part of fact, and a part of explanation (theory). Evolution contains facts (fossil record that shows change, genetics, etc), and theory that explains how and why those changes happens (and some of those explanations are actually mathematical).

It's also like a double-theory, so-to-speak, isn't it?

There's the theory that explains how Evolution happens(selection, mutations etc...), but Evolution it self is a theory because it explains the morphology and traits of life forms.

It's a theory that has a theory to explain the theory. And both theories are also facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the principle of intersubjective verifiability is one of the deepest roots of the sciences, and that, properly understood, the various methods and procedures of the sciences logically unfold from that principle.

It should be added that the intersubjective verifiability presumes relevant results that can be repeated and, therefore, verified.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think the principle of intersubjective verifiability is one of the deepest roots of the sciences, and that, properly understood, the various methods and procedures of the sciences logically unfold from that principle.

There may be deeper roots -- such as in the laws of logic -- but to my thinking, intersubjective verifiability is the watershed between science and other forms of inquiry.

Intersubjective verifiability, in essence, is the principle of verifying something by two or more people or "subjects". Doesn't sound like much at first, does it? However, I think most or all scientific methods and procedures can either be deduced or are indicated by it.

Insofar as intersubjective verifiability is a way of trying to get at objective truths, and this is the aim of science I agree. I'll think about this condition and if what others we could add but I think this is a solid one.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Scientific = what does not contradict my book
Not scientific = what does contradict my book

No matter that the methods used are the same.

Ergo, we can use my book as a replacement of K. Popper criteria of what constitutes the scientific process.

What could be simpler?

Ciao

- viole

I think I will attempt to use Cat in the Hat as the new arbiter of ultimate truth.

 

[Sunstone]

I think I will attempt to use Cat in the Hat as the new arbiter of ultimate truth.

As a child, I found that to be the most authoritative work in my entire library, next only to the "The Little Engine that Could".

 

[Sunstone]

It should be added that the intersubjective verifiability presumes relevant results that can be repeated and, therefore, verified.

Thanks for unpacking that!