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

[Deidre]

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.

But the thing is...the theory of evolution (at this stage) can't be proven wrong, could it? If a theory can no longer be proven wrong, why does it remain a theory? I think that's where I'm stuck. >_<

 

[Desert Snake]

Darwin's theory of evolution...I thought it was assumed that is what I was referring to.

Great. That actually is, just a theory.

 

[interminable]

I believe in God and see no reason to reject evolution.

I don't know whom u believe but Muslims never believe in it
Simply because it's against the quran

 

[interminable]

This is not entirely true, views are mixed.

For example: here.

Also, at present 79% of Kazakhstanis, 30% of Pakistanis, 27% of Iraqis, 26% of Afghans, 25% of Turks, 78% of college-educated Lebanese etc accept the evolution of humans. These are overwhelmingly Muslim countries, with the exception to some degree of Lebanon which has a sizable Christian minority.

Tell them first your ancestors are monkeys and then tell me how many of them agree with that

 

[Deidre]

Great. That actually is, just a theory.

Thus the point of my thread. lol Oh ...how confusing.

 

[Deidre]

I don't know whom u believe but Muslims never believe in it
Simply because it's against the quran

What would happen if you wanted to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Would that be seen as a betrayal of Islam?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Let's not overlook a priori branches of science, eg, mathematical models. These are indeed "true" (based upon rheir assumed premises), despite the fact that they're fallible (but still useful) representations of material/physical reality (a posteriori knowledge).

Note:
If this be unclear/awkward, tis cuz I'm using a phone.
Tedious stuff.

 

[interminable]

What would happen if you wanted to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Would that be seen as a betrayal of Islam?

Lady
When something is baseless and all the time say lots of evidences exist to prove this so called theory but in fact it has nothing in it just mere claims would u be calm????
I'm telling u there are some American presidents that killed millions innocent people around the world but most of the time they claim we believe in God and prophets
Which god or prophet told them to kill people just their passions are their gods

The same here
Ask true muslin scholars which of them accept that our ancestors are monkeys????

Those who believe in evolution unconsciously reject causality

 

[Skwim]

Darwin's theory of evolution...I thought it was assumed that is what I was referring to.

And no doubt you were. Here's how it breaks down

The term "Darwin's theory of evolution" is a misnomer in reference to evolution today for two reasons

1) Evolution has become a well accepted scientific fact, so it's incorrect to refer to it as a theory

2) Since Darwin proposed his theory our understanding of evolution has far surpassed his, so calling it "his" is to disregard how it has changed. It would be like referring to a cell phone as "That Alexander ....Graham Bell talking contraption."
​

That said, creationists often do refer to evolution as "Darwin's theory of evolution" or "Darwinian evolution." This is done either out of ignorance or as a deliberate attempt to denigrate it, so I'm sure we'll being seeing it for many years to come.


.

.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the thing is...the theory of evolution (at this stage) can't be proven wrong, could it? If a theory can no longer be proven wrong, why does it remain a theory? I think that's where I'm stuck. >_<

It's not going to stop being a theory because being a theory has nothing to do with how well-supported a scientific idea is.

General and special relativity are still "theories", too, but they're undeniably correct. If they was any doubt, our GPSes wouldn't work. Still, they're theories and will always stay theories.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

My understanding is that a theory consists of much more parts than a law. A law is usually something quite elementary in nature that is universal. The difference is like in math between "quadratic formula" and "trigonometry". The law of thermodynamics is a very closed, small, well defined part. It's not a theory. It's a fundamental construct of nature. A screw, bolt, joist, that all things depends upon. While theory, like theory of gravity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of economics, or theory of evolution, even if they're true, they consist of many different parts, concepts, facts, and even laws. Theory of evolution consists math and equations of many kinds. It involved chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and many other fields of science, so it's no just a single little thing you can put a stamp on and decide "that's it, now we're done, it's finished." It's a work in progress, so it makes sense that it's a theory. Or put it this way. A law is more like a page in a book, while a theory is a whole book. A scientific theory is more, much more than a law in this sense.

With that being said, the fact that evolutionary process (or progressive improvement through randomization and selection) has been suggested by some scientists to be a law, a law of nature. The process of change that leads to better "fitness" isn't unique to biological evolution, but has been used successfully in many different software and engineering projects. (However, it also has failed many times.)

 

[Ouroboros]

Darwin's theory of evolution...I thought it was assumed that is what I was referring to.

The theory of evolution has gone far beyond Darwin's theory. It has expanded, and includes genetics for instance. It's called "modern evolutionary synthesis" now, and not "Darwinism", because it incorporates other things. Also, my understanding is that modern evolutionary theory doesn't see human races the same way as Darwin did. And the process is a bit more complex than what Darwin thought. For instance, there are certain kinds of viral infections that can introduce new genetic material, it's not just mutations or recombination from sexual reproduction.

 

[Thief]

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?

sorry to get here late....

proving evolution is a trick

I believe the notion is correct
and the intelligent guess (theory) explains so much about what we see in this world

but to set in place and experiment outside the petri dish
and to be sure there are controls sufficient?

evolution is an experiment
the earth is the petri dish
Someone Else is in control of the 'lab'

 

[Thief]

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

see my previous post

 

[Ouroboros]

But the thing is...the theory of evolution (at this stage) can't be proven wrong, could it? If a theory can no longer be proven wrong, why does it remain a theory? I think that's where I'm stuck. >_<

Just because something can't be proven wrong doesn't make it a law. The use of "law" in science has gone out of vogue in general, and it was usually only used for very fundamental principles in nature, not complex systems. A theory contains laws, facts, equations, explanations, data, etc. A theory doesn't convert or get promoted to law anymore than a book is promoted to a paragraph. The book can contain many truths, and be as a whole a truth, and so can a sentence, but they're different aspect of scientific material. We don't promote an equation to mathematical field of research or vice versa. They're just different aspects of math.

Or put it this way. Food vs (salt) pepper. (Salt) Pepper is a spice (apparently salt isn't). Would you promote a cake to spice? You can eat it like you do with a spice like pepper, so why wouldn't we consider a cake to be a spice? A law can be compared to a spice like pepper, while a theory can be compared to a cake. You can eat both. But it doesn't mean they're the same thing or that you move them around back and forth in the categories.

And another thing, laws don't change and really never stop working. The law of thermodynamics are always in effect. However, evolution, even though it's true that it happened, doesn't happen everywhere in the universe at all times and in all conditions. The conditions are more specific, while thermodynamics are always true (as far as I know).

(change "salt" to "pepper" since salt isn't a spice.)

 

[Thief]

I thought salt was a mineral
and spice is a ground up vegetation

 

[Deidre]

And no doubt you were. Here's how it breaks down

The term "Darwin's theory of evolution" is a misnomer in reference to evolution today for two reasons

1) Evolution has become a well accepted scientific fact, so it's incorrect to refer to it as a theory

2) Since Darwin proposed his theory our understanding of evolution has far surpassed his, so calling it "his" is to disregard how it has changed. It would be like referring to a cell phone as "That Alexander ....Graham Bell talking contraption."
​

That said, creationists often do refer to evolution as "Darwin's theory of evolution" or "Darwinian evolution." This is done either out of ignorance or as a deliberate attempt to denigrate it, so I'm sure we'll being seeing it for many years to come.


.

.​

I like this explanation. I'm not a creationist, just saying. But to explain what I meant...I felt the need to say ''Darwin's,'' in reply earlier. lol

 

[sayak83]

If I could reject causality there is no need even to believe in evolution
I would believe in chance
The easiest way!!!

But if I couldn't reject causality I will never accept evolution since there are lots of portents that can prove the existence of God

These are the problems in your own theology. The bottom line is this. The laws and principles of evolution are as well validated as any other well established laws or principles of science (like in physics or chemistry). Given this information, what you do with it is upto you.

I told u these things that u claim are nothing but mere claims

And I told you I am happy to discuss specific points of evidence once you have some basic grounding on what its claims are.

Although I have to confess that my English isn't good enough to read all of the books about this issue

Good night

Well you can watch informative videos.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought salt was a mineral
and spice is a ground up vegetation

Ok.

Sure. Then I'll just go back and change my example to pepper.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thus the point of my thread. lol Oh ...how confusing.

You're not getting real answers to your thread question. You seem to already have what you think is the correct ''answer'', so I'm not going to waste any more effort on your confirmation bias.