We call evolution a theory but it’s generally accepted as fact by the scientific community as there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. So do we refer to it as “The Theory of Evolution” because it might offend some religious sensibilities? In other words, if religion did not exist at all or if all religious people accepted evolution as fact, would we all be saying “The Law of Evolution”?
I’m curious about the way we define laws, theories and scientific theories here, not to debate religious views about evolution or to hear people’s opinions about religious attitudes towards science.
If this is more suited for IMHO than GQ then apologies…
I think it’s more accurate to say we speak of a theory of evolution in the same sense as we do of a theory of gravity. What is questionable is the collection of details about how it works, not the general statement that it works. As far as I know, practically all scientists treat evolution as a sure thing, a law if you like (though I more often hear “law” used to describe a numerical relationship like force equals time rate of change of momentum, which is one of Newton’s laws of motion).
Nope, it would still be a theory, law just means, a theory that has withstood the test of time or, “We have tested the everloving crap out of it under many different conditions, from several different scientifc approaches, and it works every fracking time”
The problem you guys are having stems from the fact that the word theory has two different meanings. In lay conversation, it means “guess” or “idea.” But in a scientific context, a “theory” is a statement or set of statements that have been thoroughly tested and shown to adequately explain and predict observable phenomena.
Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution … all of them are “theories” in the scientific sense i.e., accepted as fact.
A “law” tells you what happens. A “theory” tells you why it happens. Newton formulated the Laws of Motion that tell us what happens when things are acted on by forces. He had no idea why they’re true, he just knew they were true.
In science, the word ‘theory’ does not mean ‘wild guess’. It is an explanation based on a preponderance of evidence, especially one that has been tested and confirmed repeatedly. Heliocentrism (the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) is a theory.
A scientific law is a very specific connection between a cause and effect in nature. The law of gravity is the mathematical equation used to describe the interaction of two masses, while the theory of gravity is more general and concerns where it comes from, different effect, etc.
When creationists say evolution by natural selection is “just a theory”, what they really mean is that it “just a hypothesis”, which is dead wrong. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on observation, that has yet to stand the test of time and may not be generally accepted by the scientific community. Over time, if it stand up to tests and is shown to be the best model for making predictions, it will be elevated to the level of “theory”.
In lay language, there should be no difference between theory and fact, even though in technical jargon a fact is simply data. But in the vernacular, it means something that is beyond dispute. Evolution is beyond dispute.
I think you’re falling into one of the classic traps there… just because something’s a theory, it doesn’t at all preclude it from being absolutely, positively true.
Theories don’t necessarily graduate into laws once enough proof is accumulated- they’re two separate things.
If you’re thinking of something unproven, then you’re thinking of a hypothesis.
Laws are generally rules for how nature works in certain conditions- ideal gas law, laws of thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion.
For example, the ideal gas law says that PV = NkT, with no explanation of why. The theory of plate tectonics on the other hand, explains WHY the world is as it is, and can to some extent predict things that will happen. It’s accepted as a fact except by the most benighted and ignorant, but it’s still a theory.
Evolution is the same way- biology and paleontology don’t make too much sense without evolution, and it’s pretty well proven that things do mutate over geologic time into new species. (and speciation isn’t as cut & dried as people seem to think either)
Personally, I think what screws people up is a lack of understanding or conception of geologic time- if you can’t really conceptualize what has happened in 500 years of human history, imagining what biological stuff could happen in miniscule increments over 50 million is out of the question.
Thanks for all those speedy replies! I think Napier’s answer seems gets to the nub of what I was after:
I guess there is still more to learned about evolution and as long as evolution continues to effect our universe (which will of course be forever) there might always be more to learn. Hence it will always be a theory. Have I understood that correctly?
And for the record, to address a couple of replies, I have no doubt in my mind it’s true. In fact I’m asking why it’s not referred to as a law. And now I know.
My understanding is that the evolution from Theory to Law is nothing more than semantics.
Why Laws? Scientists, then natural philosophers, once thought that they were discovering the fixed, immutable laws which explained the universe and brooked no exceptions.
That attitude faded in the 19th century. Science was more of a complete discipline and that brought about more humility. They knew how much they didn’t know, so to speak. While physical descriptions still seemed universal - the laws of thermodynamics, e.g. - most of biology and chemistry was obviously incomplete and barely understood. When scientists in those realms tried to form universal descriptions they called them Theories, as in the Theory of Evolution.
By the 20th century, even physicists saw that earthbound experiences were a tiny fraction of what could be called universal. They stopped calling anything a Law. It’s theories all the way down.
Nothing actually changed in the procedures, however. The process of trying to figure out what is universally applicable is in its basics identical to what Newton did. Only our understanding of where that sits in the larger picture has altered.
Religious opposition had no bearing on the Theory of Evolution being called “just” a theory. It’s all internal to the way science thinks of itself.
You don’t get any better than “theory” in science. We will never fully understand anything, not just evolution. That’s how science works. It’s not like there will be some point when the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, gets a “promotion” to a higher level.
My old college physics prof taught me that a “law” has to have a mathematical description. Newton’s Laws of Motion have mathematical interpretations; Kepler’s Laws of Orbital Motion are mathematical; Hooke’s Law; Boyle’s Law; etc.