# Assuming evolution is discovered to be junk science, would you believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194 "2011-03-28T00:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/21 "2011-03-28T02:34:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually evolution isn’t a theory anymore; it’s an observed fact. Evolution is a _theory._ In science, that doesn’t not mean a hairbrained, wild-ass idea that can be ignored. It’s an extremely good one, and explains our numerous observations better than anything else we know, but it is a _[theory:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)_ > [@](#): > > _A scientific theory_ comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. from [UC Berkeley:](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html) > [@](#): > > The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. The anti-evolutionists misuse and misunderstand the term _theory_ as it is used in science. Here’s hoping you aren’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/22 "2011-03-28T02:38:39Z")
Der is right. _Evolution is simply not a theory_. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. There are various competing theories of how exactly evolutionary mechanics work. Just like gravity. But evolution and gravity are both rock-solid facts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/23 "2011-03-28T02:45:19Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Evolution is a _theory._ In science, that doesn’t not mean a hairbrained, wild-ass idea that can be ignored. > > … > > The anti-evolutionists misuse and misunderstand the term _theory_ as it is used in science. Here’s hoping you aren’t one of them. Well, that is not exactly right; yes, it is a theory, but it is also a fact. > **[Evolution is a Fact and a Theory](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)** > > Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less understood, and it is these mechanisms that are... > [@](#): > > When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes… how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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 > > ``` > > Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/24 "2011-03-28T02:55:30Z")
If evolution is false I’d be stuck so deep in Solispist denial of everything to not know what to think. Clearly my senses weren’t reliable. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/25 "2011-03-28T02:57:01Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > A spanner is an imperfectly designed device for cutting a lawn; it may be that when we spy imperfection in design, we’re merely looking at it being used for a different purpose. But [the panda’s thumb](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html) (to use Gould’s example) is pretty much an example of a jury-rigged spanner. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/26 "2011-03-28T03:06:09Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > But [the panda’s thumb](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html) (to use Gould’s example) is pretty much an example of a jury-rigged spanner. I’m not sure I understand your point. Could you explain it for me? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/27 "2011-03-28T03:16:53Z")
I’d be curious to know what is right if evolution is wrong. What exactly would show it to be junk science? Creation 6,000 years ago? Some degree of intelligent design? It the latter, intervention by space aliens (or pTerry’s world builders) would be a lot more probable than any god. The OP might as well ask what if we discovered that we didn’t really grow up with our parents, but got inserted into earth by a flying saucer a year ago. Just about as plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/28 "2011-03-28T03:43:03Z")
My assumption is that life as it exists evolved through natural selection or was programmed into existence by computers as part of the Matrix. So if evolution is discovered to be junk science, this proves the Matrix theory is true. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/29 "2011-03-28T03:44:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Der is right. _Evolution is simply not a theory_. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. There are various competing theories of how exactly evolutionary mechanics work. Just like gravity. > > But evolution and gravity are both rock-solid facts. It is possible to have a theory (used in the scientific sense) that is so rock solid that it is treated as a fact. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, that is not exactly right; yes, it is a theory, but it is also a fact. I say again: **The two terms are not mutually exclusive.** Nowhere will you find me arguing that one precludes the other. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/30 "2011-03-28T03:55:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m not sure I understand your point. Could you explain it for me? Pandas, like many mammals, have paws with digits at the end. Pandas, however, unlike most mammals also have a seperate thumblike digit. Zoologists who have studied panda anatomy have found that the thumb is not a true digit - it’s actually an elongated wrist bone. Other species have this wrist bone but it’s nowhere near as large and doesn’t protrude from the limb. And pandas also have an analogous elongated ankle bone which protrudes from their hind legs but isn’t long enough to be useful as a digit. The point that evolutionary scientists have made is that nobody would have intentionally set out to design a digit this way. If somebody was designing a panda from scratch, they would have just given it a regular thumb. They wouldn’t have given it five regular digits and then turned a wrist bone into a pseudo-digit. And there would have been no reason to give pandas an elongated ankle bone which serves no use. The most obvious explanation is that there was no design. Nobody set out to give pandas thumbs. They just developed them by accident by a series of random mutations that happened to work out - ie evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/31 "2011-03-28T03:56:52Z")
I think it’s simplest to say that the word “theory,” in science, means"explanation." It doesn’t mean hypothetical or unproven. It means a prevailing explanation supported by strong evidence. Gravity is a theory, the atom is a theory, it is a theory that germs cause disease. None of those things carry the slightest doubt as to veracity. They are all proven facts, and so is evolution. Evolution might even be the most hardy of all f them since it has been the most strenuously and continuousy challenged and tested for the last 150 years. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/32 "2011-03-28T03:59:24Z")
Right, but evolution IS fact. As has been pointed out, it’s been observed. You have observed it yourself if you’ve ever had to go get a flu shot, or caught a cold (there are myriad examples…take your pick). So…it’s a ‘theory’ AND it’s a fact at the same time. The theory of evolution involves various mechanisms by which species evolve. The fact of evolution involves the same sorts of observable data that tell us that gravity is a ‘fact’…we can observe it’s effect directly, after all, even if we only have theories as to what makes it tick. Finding out that evolution was ‘junk science’ would be, as a previous poster pointed out, the same as finding out tomorrow that gravity in fact didn’t work because we were all busily falling away from the earth. It would be that profound. It would basically turn our entire body of science on it’s head, and we’d have to start thinking about game theory (as in, we are actually in a gigantic virtual world that some vast 10 year old is playing and getting bored, so decided to switch the rules to gank the 15 year old griefer down the street). ETA: Sorry, my post was directed towards Musicat…I just can’t keep up trying to post on my iPad. ☹ -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/33 "2011-03-28T03:59:47Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > It is possible to have a theory (used in the scientific sense) that is so rock solid that it is treated as a fact. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. > I say again: **The two terms are not mutually exclusive.** Nowhere will you find me arguing that one precludes the other. Well, yes, but it is a fact that you did not say that it was also a fact until I mention it.. 🙂 I’m just also saying, I was not contradicting you. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/34 "2011-03-28T04:05:07Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > It is possible to have a theory (used in the scientific sense) that is so rock solid that it is treated as a fact. But we’re not talking about that. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. We know it happens. That’s not theory at all. There are several theories on how evolutionary mechanics work. But “evolution is factual” is as factual as “gravity exists”. If tomorrow, for instance, punctuated equilibrium was shown to have more merit than gradualism (and I’m way oversimplifying here), evolution would still be as factual as ever, we’d just be modifying the theories we use to talk about it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/35 "2011-03-28T04:50:53Z")
Not only is it absurd to speak of evolution being “discovered to be junk science”, as so many other posters have already alluded to, but there’s no particular connection between acceptance or not of evolution, and belief or lack thereof in God. There are plenty of folks who both accept the truth of evolution and believe in God. In fact, it displays rather a lack of faith to even think that evolution in some way discredits God-- The God I believe in is by far powerful enough and elegant enough to be able to create a Universe that would evolve. ---
**Author:** ![komolono](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/komolono/32/532_2.png) [@komolono](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/komolono)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/36 "2011-03-28T04:58:35Z")
I suppose evolution would become “junk” if carbon dating were disacovered to be misunderstood. But it’s not me saying that it will. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/37 "2011-03-28T05:19:01Z")
> [@komolono](#): > > I suppose evolution would become “junk” if carbon dating were disacovered to be misunderstood. No, evolution isn’t dependent on carbon dating - which after all came about much later than Darwin. We can see evolution happening in labs; it needs to be taken into account with everything from pesticide resistance to cancer. Again; at this point, disproving evolution would be like trying to disprove gravity. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/38 "2011-03-28T06:12:25Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > As already pointed out, not only is the issue not binary so that “if not evolution than the Abrahamic God”, but evolution is as solid as gravity. It’s a fact. > . Well, it’s not totally unconceivable that it could be shown at some point that the mechanisms of mutations are too random and too slow paced to have resulted in such a variety of species perfectly fitted to their environment, or at least that it is highly unlikely. I’m assume it’s the kind of scenario the OP had in mind. It’s discovered that evolution exists but can’ t explain all the facts. Then, yes, a “designer” toying around to get whatever result he wanted to begin with (say, octopuses dominating the world) would be a possible explanation.. But of course it wouldn’t be an evidence for the Abrahamic god, and not even for any god at all (aliens, our world being an hyperealistic SIM game, whatever). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/39 "2011-03-28T06:19:26Z")
Oh, Elder Gods, not the stupid watchmaker analogy. Look, it’s inherently flawed. TAke, for instance, that we notice the watch as designed **in contrast to the natural world around it** , and then turn around and say no, wait, _that’s_ designed too. But how, then, did we spot a difference between the watch’s complexity and that of Nature? There must be some style of difference there, that we then want to ignore in order to do our special pleading. Anyway, as I’ve pointed out before, fantastically complex ordered designs appear without any direction all the time in nature. In ways we can actually see happening. [Snowflakes](http://drawnassociation.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=760&vpy=273&dur=1069&hovh=254&hovw=198&tx=111&ty=216&ei=HieQTaSHEsTYsgbuyZH9CQ&oei=HieQTaSHEsTYsgbuyZH9CQ&page=1&tbnh=146&tbnw=113&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:0), [crystals](http://www.bigfoto.com/miscellaneous/photos-16/salt-crystals-94jf.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=282&vpy=191&dur=3923&hovh=181&hovw=279&tx=111&ty=117&ei=RSeQTbOJMsTYsgbuyZH9CQ&oei=RSeQTbOJMsTYsgbuyZH9CQ&page=1&tbnh=143&tbnw=195&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0), [mudcracks](http://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/5SedimentaryRocks/SedStructures/Mudcracks/SmallMudcracksRaceTrackDV.JPG?iact=hc&vpx=653&vpy=129&dur=3821&hovh=179&hovw=282&tx=107&ty=89&ei=byeQTa3aGobCtAbl2sSQCg&oei=byeQTa3aGobCtAbl2sSQCg&page=1&tbnh=105&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0), [cross-bedding](http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/seds/bedforms/photo_pages/images/fig61.jpg), [oolite](http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Osmington/6OS-Middle-Oolite-section.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=663&vpy=138&dur=1002&hovh=176&hovw=286&tx=127&ty=88&ei=OiiQTe66LsrGtAaM9rCWCg&oei=OiiQTe66LsrGtAaM9rCWCg&page=1&tbnh=116&tbnw=188&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0), [psolite](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5261462460_e3a67a0be1.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=378&vpy=242&dur=4436&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=157&ty=78&ei=zSiQTbjFHMHOtAbm1qD8CQ&oei=zSiQTbjFHMHOtAbm1qD8CQ&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=258&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0)- are these designed? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/40 "2011-03-28T06:24:51Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > cross-bedding It has the word "cross’ right in it. Obviously God did it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=3)