As people have pointed out, there’s nothing ‘better’ than a theory in science, it’s the highest tier. And I don’t think creationists dispute that: when they say evolution is a theory, they’re not saying that there’s a higher tier of scientific proof to which it hasn’t attained yet. What they’re saying is that it hasn’t been proven for certain; it’s just a theory, in the same way that intelligent design is a theory. Which is true, but it’s misleading because it’s an attempt to surreptitiously imply that ID has the same level of scientific merit as evolution, because they’re both equal in being theories. They’re trying to skim over the fact that evolution has a lot of evidence in its favor, while ID has none.
Well, yes and no. ID can’t be a Theory as it’s not falsifiable (it’s a Hypothesis). Evolution is not really a theory* either, it’s an observable fact. "Natural selection’ is a Theory and has been tested and shown to be correct. But perhaps there are some exceptions, so while we know natural selection is one way Evolution occurs, it may not be the only way evolution occurs. Just like we know Matter and Energy usually follow Newton’s Laws (which are Theories), there are some exceptions.
- When dudes say “the Theory of Evolution” they often leave out “…by Natural Selection”
So who did Newton bribe to get his “theories” of motion taught as laws? Why does physics get laws but evolution remains a theory?
Note - I understand the difference in the two uses of theory, and it’s the creationist type of use that leads me to ask this, because of the dismissive “well it’s a THEORY not a fact” point about evolution that inevitably appears at some point in such discussions.
(sorry if this is a hijack)
In the case of Newton, I think it is mainly an older usage. After all, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity remain a theories rather than laws, despite having been around for a century and being extensively tested; likewise Quantum Theory.
Biology has lots of rules, but no real laws: Allen’s, Bergmann’s, Cope’s, Gloger’s, Haldane’s, etc.
As far as my understanding of the terms under discussion, there is no competing theory for evolution–evolution is a fact; organisms change over time–but there are several competing theories (although “competing” is not a word I would use: supplemental? complementary?) for Darwinism, i.e. natural selection.
Proponents of ID do argue that it’s a theory. So even if the consensus in the scientific world is that it’s not, it’s still an accurate representation of their claim.
But I have to admit, I don’t understand why say, young earth creationism is not considered a legit scientific theory. For instance, it makes the claim that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and takes it as essential to its theory: and that’s a claim which can be thoroughly disproved, isn’t it?
Only scientifically. Its proponents refuse to acknowledge the validity of such proofs–they claim that to accept such scientific proofs amounts to no more than a “faith” in science, so their “theory” remains just as valid in their eyes.
Speaking as a fish, I make the educated guess that a functioning visual cortex takes a certain amount of brainpower to maintain, and that a fish lacking constant visual input might have more gray matter to spend on more valuable things. A blind fish’s sense of smell, or pressure, or temperature, might be better adapted, leading to an increased ability to navigate in the dark to find food and/or mates.
The fact remains, however, is that ID proponents are using “theory” in an entirely different sense than scientists use “theory.”
Here’s your problem. In scientific usage, Young Earth Creationism is a hypothesis, not a theory. This hypothesis has successfully been falsified (at least if you assume that God didn’t create everything just so that it looked billions of years old), so that it cannot possibly qualify as a theory.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06149/694046-85.stm
I don’t know much about Darwin’s evolution, but this guy and others have differing viewpoint on some of the key issues. Read it for what it’s worth. Like I said, I don’t know enough to even have an opinion.
This falls in the category of “arguing over the details of how exactly it works.” It’s not a fundamentally different theory.
Okay. Thanks, didn’t know the difference.
I thought Schwartz’s ideas sounded familiar…he’s the author of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, which I picked up a few years ago at a discount book store. He’s basically a supporter of “Punctuated Equilibrium” (as am I, for that matter), and the idea that relatively minor changes in genes suites such as homeobox genes can not only have dramatic affects on an organism’s phenotype, but may also be major players in the evolution of novel features, and perhaps even species themselves. So, despite the tone of the article linked by jakesteele, he’s really not all that much of a maverick these days (nor are his ideas particularly contrary to the current “modern synthesis”; they aren’t even particularly unique, for that matter…). Closer, perhaps, to “cutting edge”, since we’re only just beginning to understand the link between development and evolution (and, indeed, that’s what Jack Horner plans to capitalize on in his “Dinochicken” project). Anyway, he’s not a primary researcher in evo-devo, so his book us really more of a summary directed at “the educated layman” than a scientific treatise.
Laws describe. Theories explain.
The Law of Gravity describes the attraction between two bodies as a function of their mass and their distance.
The Theory of Gravity is that there is some force that causes two bodies to attract each other as described in the Law of Gravity.
An alternate Theory of Gravity would be that angels push objects together, or that rocks fall because they are trying to return to their proper place.
Evolution is not a theory but a fact, or law; as DrFidelius explains it simply describes what we see happening. Punctuated Equilibrium (as mentioned by Darwin’s Finch above) is one theory of how evolution produces the effects we see. We would all be better off if we referred to it as the Law of Evolution and be done with this “theory” nonsense.