Whenever the Creationist or ID tell me "Evolution is just a theory", I always respond with a version of, "yes, it is. Just like Relativity or Gravitation", which almost always ends the argument Usually my arguments with the religious simply end at this point, they generally know they are losing ground and stop digging.
Thus I remain an unrepentant gravisist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's completely fair to say that evolution is a theory like gravity. It is not however a Law, e.g. Newton's Law of Motion or the Law of Gravity (different from the Theory of Gravitation).
Wiki gives an excellent definition of scientific theory .
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
Gravity has not, as far as I know, ever been replicated. The mathematical framework has been tested in a variety of circumstances, but the effect itself is still not understood. Described, but no one knows why it exists at all.
Stellar evolution… well… I’m not sure what you mean when you say it’s a “weaker” theory. It works very well AFAIK, and I’ve studied it quite a bit of detail. In what way is it “weak”? Theories of Stellar Evolution are not, in any way, related to the Theory of Evolution.
The best that we can do with evolution (and black holes) is keep certain data hidden from ourselves, construct a theory, and then reveal the data that was there all the time, and see if the theory still holds.
Keep certain data hidden from ourselves??? What does that mean? Do mean deliberately ignore field data to test a hypothesis? Physical Science doesn’t operate on any kind of principle like that. Why would we keep data deliberately hidden? Do you mean double blind experiments? Is there any citable reference where a physical scientist has done this?
Fellow evolutionists should have enough balls to acknowledge that evolution is not really in the same class as gravity.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific meaning of the word theory. As is gravity. As is relativity etc. The common usage of the word theory by creationists is to put it on the same level as their Theory that the Earth was Created in 7 Days, which is not a theory in the same framework as evolution. Does evolution have room to grow and correct itself? Absolutely! But so goes gravity and relativity.
When we're all post-humans living for a million years, then we'll be in a position to really prove evolution: we'll be able to watch it happen.
I don’t think post-humanity will be happening any time soon, and I certainly don’t think anyone alive today will see it. Until then, I’ll stick to science the old fashioned way.
Post a Comment