Why is the theory of evolution...still considered a theory?

[Deidre]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

Scientific theory just means there are still things that need to be ironed out and understood from already established facts.

Like the theory of gravity.

 

[sun rise]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

It's not silly at all because too many people think they know what a scientific theory is but are confused because the common use of the word "theory" is different. It's great that you asked. Wikipedia has a good explanation of the difference:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory?

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science.

Science has no power to decree something as "true", so the ToE has no need nor place to be "promoted".

I am not sure how or when the popular conception of "theory" as something that is "not properly proven" arose, but that in no way applies to the Theory of Evolution. It is an entirely different meaning of the word.

Why isn't it a law?

If I am not mistaken, mainly because law is a name generally reserved for postulates that are narrower in scope and lend themselves to very predictable numerical results.

Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

For well over a century, yes. But in science "theory" is not the same as "hypothesis". In popular usage, yes, and that is unfortunate.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution as such is not a theory. Science regards it as fact. Where theory comes into play is in describing how it works, and there are quite a few theories of how evolution works depending on what aspect of evolution is being addressed. "Theory of evolution" most often comes into play as a synonym for evolution. It is not. This misnomer is typically used by creationists who employ it as a way to demote evolution from its status as fact to the level of a theoretical construct in the minds of the unwitting. Whether this is done out of ignorance or a tactical ploy seems to depend on the resolve of its proponent. Informed creationists, often its spokesmen, who know better purposely use it to denigrate evolution. (While they don't accept evolution as factual, they know science does.) The rest of the creationist community seem to be unwitting sheep who simply don't know any better. They truly believe evolution is no more than a theory. Unfortunately, aside from creationists, "theory of evolution" has been mistakenly picked up by others as a valid moniker for evolution. If you're prone to use it, don't.


.

 

[sayak83]

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science.

Science has no power to decree something as "true", so the ToE has no need nor place to be "promoted".

I am not sure how or when the popular conception of "theory" as something that is "not properly proven" arose, but that in no way applies to the Theory of Evolution. It is an entirely different meaning of the word.


If I am not mistaken, mainly because law is a name generally reserved for postulates that are narrower in scope and lend themselves to very predictable numerical results.



For well over a century, yes. But in science "theory" is not the same as "hypothesis". In popular usage, yes, and that is unfortunate.

Scientists actually are very fast and loose with convention. If something is known by one name, there is never really an attempt to change that name. Thus the theory of General and Special Relativity and String Theory are both theories, though one is hugely hugely substantiated while the other is highly speculative. So while theories are usually overarching models that aspire to represent vast realms of a specific scientific field, one needs to ask the scientific community itself to know if the theory is well established or speculative or debunked. Evolutionary theory is very well established of course.

 

[psychoslice]

The theory of evolution a theory, yes, but what else is there to replace it, a god in the sky ?.

 

[Skwim]

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science.

Science has no power to decree something as "true", so the ToE has no need nor place to be "promoted".

Sure it has. For one thing, truth can be considered in light of its opposite, false. Is it false that physical objects posses gravitational attraction? Yes it is false---science has shown this to be so---therefore, it must be true that objects posses gravitational attraction. So is science justified in saying gravitational attraction is true? Sure it is, and it's also justified in saying that gravitational attraction is a fact. But exactly how firm is such science truth? Is it absolutely, utterly, positively, unconditionally so? Well, taking scientific truth to be equivalent to scientific fact, it's well to remember what Stephen Jay Gould said about scientific fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."​

And, if one is making some kind of distinction between scientific truth and scientific fact, I believe this goes for science truth as well.

.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

Scientific theory is not the same as "layman" theory. Your "theory" as to why there's a missing cupcake is not the same as the theory of gravity or evolution. A scientific theory is a collection of various parts that are constantly being refined, better & better until it is proven to be wrong.

 

[interminable]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

Evolution isn't a theory

If accident is a theory evolution can be a theory too
But since accident isn't a theory and is against logic evolution has the same fait


Those who believe in evolution they just wanna deny god but not publicly they can't do that
Instead they believe in evolution or prefer to be agnostic

 

[Altfish]

Those who believe in evolution they just wanna deny god but not publicly they can't do that
Instead they believe in evolution or prefer to be agnostic

Most religious leaders accept evolution to be true. So is the Pope denying God?

 

[interminable]

Most religious leaders accept evolution to be true. So is the Pope denying God?

Most???
How did u know that???

In Islam at least nobody believes in it

Simply because they can't even explain how gender was established???

God says :we created every living things in male and female

 

[Sunstone]

Simply because they can't even explain how gender was established???

On the contrary, the sciences have indeed an explanation for both the existence of sex (Red Queen Hypothesis), and for there in most sexual species being just two sexes (rather than three or thirty, etc). As it happens, the scientific explanations for these things does not require one to believe in magic, as does the notion that some god poofed the sexes into being.

Next time, Google first. Speak later.

 

[Godobeyer]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but since we know that there exists plenty of viable information to support the theory of evolution, why is it still only considered a theory? Why isn't it a law? Or called something else? Theory implies a set of ideas that is supposing something to be true. Think we're past the idea phase of the theory of evolution, no?

There is many theories .
I am watching a long series(eposides) of explaination of evolution by details made by Dr Adan Ibrahim.
For my first impression he speak about evolution is about micro evolution which all human agree on.
macro evolution is debatable and not proved yet.

So that's why it's remain theory.

 

[Altfish]

Most???

In Islam at least nobody believes in it

Which goes a long way to explaining why that religion is still in the dark ages.

 

[interminable]

On the contrary, the sciences have indeed an explanation for both the existence of sex (Red Queen Hypothesis), and for there in most sexual species being just two sexes (rather than three or thirty, etc). As it happens, the scientific explanations for these things does not require one to believe in magic, as does the notion that some god poofed the sexes into being.

Next time, Google first. Speak later.

I watched a documetary It's name is COSMOS A SPACETIME ODYSSEY

In this documentary he claimed :we don't know about that

Besides that hypothesys doesn't explain how sexual organs and womb and ... Were created does it???

U don't think that when we weren't I mean there were not any living things
Who knew that there are something audible or visible???????????
?????
Evolution told us to see to smell to love to think?????

How strange!!

 

[interminable]

Which goes a long way to explaining why that religion is still in the dark ages.

How do u know that u aren't in a modern darkness???

Ignoring causality is being in darkness???

Those so called scientists even after a long experiments say

There must be something smart to create this world but they don't say he is god

Accepting god has some consequences that they wanna evade

 

[Jumi]

There are other theories like atomic theory, cell theory, molecular theory... those will never be called laws, but will remain theories even though they are as factual as it gets.

 

[Jumi]

Accepting god has some consequences that they wanna evade

What would those consequences be?

 

[Maponos]

Because you can't 100% prove it because there were no witnesses. I believe in it, but there is still much to be learned (and some truths to accept).