Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The overwhelming evidence that Evolution has occurred can be ignored because we don't know the ultimate origins of life. True or false? [Spirituality & Religion]

Poll - Total Votes: 28
True
False
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
OggggO · 36-40, M
For anyone quibbling about definitions:
[quote][b]Choose the Right Synonym for theory[/b]
HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. the theory of evolution LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions. the law of gravitation

[b]The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory[/b]
A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

[b]Two Related, Yet Distinct, Meanings of Theory[/b]
There are many shades of meaning to the word theory. Most of these are used without difficulty, and we understand, based on the context in which they are found, what the intended meaning is. For instance, when we speak of music theory we understand it to be in reference to the underlying principles of the composition of music, and not in reference to some speculation about those principles.

However, there are two senses of theory which are sometimes troublesome. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory," implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.[/quote]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
@OggggO


Excellent disambiguation.
Theseus · 46-50, M
@Pikachu Indeed!
Faust76 · 46-50, M
@Pikachu Even if it was called "Law of Evolution" the people who protest "But it's just a theory" would simply be saying "But it's just a law, and I don't recognize the authority of secular law over divine justice". 😂

That said, uhm, science should really get their act together and define those terms in a way that makes sense. Maybe like the International Astronomical Union stripping Pluto of planet status, the Science Mafia should get together and decide that from now on it shall for all time be known as "The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution" from now on to solve the controversy. Here's to hoping...

I rather like the short version of "a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research." I don't even see a clear reason evolution can't be considered a law, other than perhaps being too large and complex concept. Certainly Mendel's Laws of Inheritance go long way towards explaining (if not necessitating the existence of) basics of evolution.
Theseus · 46-50, M
@Faust76 [quote]
That said, uhm, science should really get their act together and define those terms in a way that makes sense.

[/quote]

[b][i]SPOT ON![/i][/b]
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Faust76 [quote]That said, uhm, science should really get their act together and define those terms in a way that makes sense. [/quote] They honestly do, it’s hard to see exactly what all the confusion is.
[quote] don't even see a clear reason evolution can't be considered a law, other than perhaps being too large and complex concept. Certainly Mendel's Laws of Inheritance go long way towards explaining (if not necessitating the existence of) basics of evolution.[/quote]Because as soon as you go beyond basic descriptive relationships not the “why” of things you end up with a theory.

Heliocentrism and germ theory of disease aren’t laws either.
@OggggO I can't believe they used "law of gravitation" or gravity a few times...

That is a poor example, on more than one basis...ugh.

Conservation of total charge would be far better.
OggggO · 36-40, M
@SomeMichGuy https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-09-22