When you say 'The theory of evolution' you do realize?

When you say 'The theory of evolution' you do realize? Topic: Testable hypothesis meaning
June 20, 2019 / By Esther
Question: The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory. So why do so many theists think the use of the word theory in evolution means more of a speculative thing than an accepted thing?
Best Answer

Best Answers: When you say 'The theory of evolution' you do realize?

Clarice Clarice | 1 day ago
Because they have to lie in order to make their bullshit fairytales seem more credible by comparison.
👍 270 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? When you say 'The theory of evolution' you do realize? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Testable hypothesis meaning

Clarice Originally Answered: When you say 'The theory of evolution' you do realize?
Because they have to lie in order to make their bullshit fairytales seem more credible by comparison.

Beatie Beatie
Indeed, and Stephen Gould said it best this way, thirty years ago: -In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.- - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
👍 120 | 👎 -6

Adelphie Adelphie
Lilly....I think when all is said and done...Theory by it's very structure implies further fact finding study on a particular subject.....I suppose there has to be a starting point somewhere...:)
👍 120 | 👎 -13

Teige Teige
You are wrong most of us understand what a scientific theory is, as opposed to the lay use of the word
👍 120 | 👎 -20

Phelim Phelim
gravity is also a theory.. christians are nutjobs that will never understand their story of creation is a fallacy
👍 120 | 👎 -27

Phelim Originally Answered: Law vrs theory. like evolution differs from gravity?
It won't. Scientifically speaking, a theory is GREATER than a law. Theories are the MOST ACCEPTED status that any scientific idea can attain. Laws only explain specific, observable, repeatable events in similar circumstances. They do not posit a mechanism or explanation for the event. Theories do this by encompassing laws and placing/explaining the them in a context with other laws, evidence, facts, models, hypotheses, and observations. For example, there is an Ohm's Law, a Fick's law of diffusion, and a Hopkinson's law...but all of them fall UNDER the umbrella of the electromagnetic theory. The laws serve to support the theory. Also, while Newton did formulate a universal law of gravitation, the larger concept and study of gravity itself is a theory. Newton's law of gravitation states that "every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." But this only tells us how two bodies will react under the influence of gravity. It does not tell us what gravity is, where gravity comes from, what gives gravity the force it has, etc. The theory of gravity contains all those ideas AND the law of universal gravitation within it. Laws are more like "If A happens, then B will happen." Theories are more like "B will happen BECAUSE..." It is an old misconception that there is some mythical and direct chain of events that says hypotheses become theories and theories become laws, but this is simply untrue. No doubt your teachers taught you incorrect or outdated understandings of science. Most basic science textbooks nowdays correct the old myth of any clear, linear science promotion for ideas. For the record gravity is a theory. The fact that your body is made up of cells is also a "mere" theory (cell theory). It will NEVER become a "law" that you are made of cells. Never. Yet the whole of modern medicine is built upon the idea and you can easily look at your own cells under a microscope. The fact that the moon goes around the earth and that the earth goes around the sun are also scientific theories--because these are known to be absolutely, factually true and "theory" the highest form of scientific acceptance (it is the heliocentric theory, not the heliocentric law--and it never will be). That the axial tilt of the earth causes the seasons is a theory. Nuclear fission is a theory (one so well proven we built one hell of a bomb on it). Electro-magneticism is a theory. Everything being made of atoms is known as atomic theory. That light and sound travel in predictable, controllable, alterable, measurable waves is wave theory. Etc. etc. etc.

If you have your own answer to the question testable hypothesis meaning, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.