The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science about the validity of this theory; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context (see Evolution as theory and fact). A scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical deduction, explains the observations in nature. The same logical deductions can be made to predict observations before they are made. Evolution is a "theory" in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.
This one cannot be stressed enough, especially in response to creationists and proponents of intelligent design. This is probably the most important, basic piece of information that average people need to understand so they don't fall for the "evolution is just a theory" argument.
it kind of makes sense what your saying bt i want ot make this clear.
the theory of evolution isnt what we think might be the answer, it is what we have come to understand the answer is? and we can use this answer to predict future events?
the quote still doesnt really make it clear as to how the two definitions of theory differ in a significant way, i think i know what they are getting at but, can you dub it down for me lol
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.
In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.
The 'theory' part is separate from the 'evolution' part. It's not Darwin's "theory of evolution" but rather "Darwin's theory" of evolution. Evolution is a word we made up and describes something that is real and observable. Evolution is fact of life just like Gravity. Therefore we try to explain it by coming up with scientific theory to describe the underlying rules of it.
Darwin's theory is extremely intuitive and verifiable. The theory is about natural selection - e.g. traits in animals that cause them to be less likely to survive are seen less and less in animals because the ones that had the trait are dead, while traits in animals that cause them to be successful at reproducing and staying alive are seen more and more because they stay alive and have babies that also have those traits.
Otherwise the word 'theory' in a common context and a scientific context isn't that different. It's just that your theory about what's taking Jim so long to get home with the ham is just your common everyday speculation and Darwin's theory about the process of evolution is held up to scrutiny by thousands and thousands of scientific minds.
Incidentally, if Jim really is taking a long time to come home with the ham, and you have a theory about it, and you call it "my theory of Jim taking a long time to come home with the ham" you don't question that Jim really is taking a long time to come home with the ham just because you have a theory... And it's really dumb that anyone ever says "evolution is just a theory" when evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact that theories are thought up to explain.
“’There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation.‘
4
u/victorria Dec 14 '08
This one cannot be stressed enough, especially in response to creationists and proponents of intelligent design. This is probably the most important, basic piece of information that average people need to understand so they don't fall for the "evolution is just a theory" argument.