Yes, I am.
There's no confirmation bias...we are discussing a topic, and everyone's input matters.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is the theory of evolution...still considered a theory?
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
There's no confirmation bias...we are discussing a topic, and everyone's input matters.
I guess a theory could best be explained as an explanation of facts. Not in competition with those facts. We read and discuss scientific theories a lot in everyday life, but I hadn't really picked apart the term before, and made sense of it. Appreciate everyone's input on this.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, you aren't. You're getting /some answers that seem good to you, and your agreeing with those.
Rightooo...
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just keep in mind the following distinctions.
Hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on what you know or observe. Hypotheses (plural of hypothesis) are proven and disproven all of the time. Hypotheses play a strong role in the scientific method where you formulate a question, create a hypothesis, make a testable prediction, test, and then analyze the data. Even then, a hypothesis needs to be tested and retested many times before it is generally accepted in the scientific community as being true.
Theory:
A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.
Law:
Scientific laws are short, sweet, and always true. Many times laws are expressed in a single expression. Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws). Laws are accepted as being universal and are the cornerstones of science. If a law were ever to be shown false, then any science built on that law would also be wrong; then the domino effect would have a new (and devastating) meaning. Laws generally rely on a concise mathematical equation.
source
.
A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on what you know or observe. Hypotheses (plural of hypothesis) are proven and disproven all of the time. Hypotheses play a strong role in the scientific method where you formulate a question, create a hypothesis, make a testable prediction, test, and then analyze the data. Even then, a hypothesis needs to be tested and retested many times before it is generally accepted in the scientific community as being true.
Theory:
A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.
Law:
Scientific laws are short, sweet, and always true. Many times laws are expressed in a single expression. Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws). Laws are accepted as being universal and are the cornerstones of science. If a law were ever to be shown false, then any science built on that law would also be wrong; then the domino effect would have a new (and devastating) meaning. Laws generally rely on a concise mathematical equation.
source
.
Because in the sciences "theory" means a framework in which empirical research can be conducted, experiments designed and interpreted, and data/results structured. The "theory" of evolution is a framework that forms the basis for entire fields of scientific research (e.g., evolutionary psychology) and guides and structures research in a vast number of fields (e.g., machine learning, linguistics, astrobiology, etc.). In the sciences, many theories are more fundamental than entire scientific fields, and evolutionary theory is one such example.
In general, the use of "laws" to describe findings in the sciences has been abandoned. Most of the "laws" in physics or chemistry or in the sciences more generally are now known to be false. Theories can and are often more fundamental than laws. In general, we do not bother to classify findings in the sciences in terms of laws, theories, etc., or even bother with such nomenclature. Quantum mechanics is a theory but is rarely referred to as such (and is distinguished from the slightly archaic term "quantum theory" because this can be and often is taken to include both non-relativistic and relativistic quantum field theories), embodied cognition is a theory although I can't remember it being referred to as such, most models are theories, and most theories are not precisely defined in any one way nor are they encapsulated by any one interpretation or understanding.
There are issues in evolutionary theory that have not been resolved, despite the virtually incomparable evidence for evolutionary theory and the basically unanimous acceptance among scientists of evolutionary theory. The theory itself has grown as our understanding of the processes it seeks to describe has grown. Darwin, after all, knew nothing of genetics, and the double helix structure of DNA was only discovered in the mid-twentieth century.
Last edited:
This is nonsense. Most "laws" WERE shown to be wrong and are still wrong, others continue to be reformulated and redefined in order to be defined to be correct (e.g., the violations of the law of energy conservation in relativistic physics were reformulated in terms of the energy-momentum 4-vector or tensor conservation). I can't think of a single law that is "accepted as being universal" in any single form. Also, there is no strict divide between theory and hypothesis. That's why this nomenclature is almost entirely found in pedagogical literature or popular science literature (or nonsense crap), not the technical literature. String theory is called "theory" but not only hasn't been tested ever, it cannot even in principle be tested because there is no clear formulation of what it actually is (the basic mathematics of this mathematical unification framework have not yet been resolved, so there are no basic equations which one could use even to propose a thought experiment). The most fundamental law in all of science (the conservation of energy or whatever quantity energy is made to be taken together with) does not hold in general because, like most "laws", it is held to be true only of isolated ("closed") systems. Most of fundamental physics rests not on "laws" or "theories" but on postulates.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Someone ?.
That is exactly what that survey is referring to. It is that precisely which these people surveyed were agreeing with.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Last edited:
This is too skeptical a take (which is your tendency). No scientific theory is universally applicable as of now, hence the laws within them each have their domain of applicability. Both Einstein's field equations of GR and the Schrodinger's equation or Feyman's QED equations are laws with their domain of applicability. Scientists don't call them laws because one is somehow supposed to describe the law in words in a succinct manner, and science has long outstripped such simple translatability.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Joshua Filmer is your guru?
McBell
Unbound
rotflmao
So other than demonstrating your bold empty claim, what reason did you post in the thread?
The whole " I know the answer but I ain't telling" tactic is so grade school and childish I am actually surprised to see you using it.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Threads like this highlight why so much confusion about Evolutionary science still persists in so many circles... It's unfortunate that we, on the internet, have so many hundreds of thousands of teaching tools readily available at our fingertips, yet we still lack basic and fundamental knowledge of topics that we wish to discuss.
It's odd.
If you have a strong opinion about a subject that you obviously know very little about, what good is your opinion?
It's odd.
If you have a strong opinion about a subject that you obviously know very little about, what good is your opinion?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Actually, it was the first site I came across that pretty much defined the three as I understand them.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Actually, his was the first site I came across that fairly well covered the three. Although lacking a bit, I think the descriptions suffice.
.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
But why someone and not something ?.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
because the substance cannot move without a push
the universe has been set in motion
by the snap of God's fingers
hence the rotation we see
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ok.....he calls hypothesis a reasonable guessActually, his was the first site I came across that fairly well covered the three. Although lacking a bit, I think the descriptions suffice.
.
theory has some experiment
and law is proven
it's a reasonable guess.....til proven
some experiment would be helpful but would need be definitive to jump from the word....guess
then comes the word....law
The theory of gravity is still a theory
even though we could drop cannonballs from a height ....forever...
and the results are the same....forever
we still don't know how it works....and gravity is a theory
a good guess with experiment
but we are still guessing
psychoslice
Veteran Member
So this man in the the sky just snaps his fingers and everything appears like magic, I see, that makes a lot of sense doesn't it lol.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no....it began in a void
a Spirit able to say...I AM....brought the universe into existence
the rotation would need be in play BEFORE the expansion begins
hence the catch phrase.....snap of His fingers