Evolution: Fact And Theory Exposing The Creationist's False Claim

religioniswar's picture

Evolution: Fact And Theory

Exposing The Creationist's False Claim

Author: Steven Hoole

Evolution, most often described as "The Theory Of Evolution" by creationists is in fact a misunderstanding. There is a theory of evolution, however creationists will offer that evolution is just a theory. Where the word just is used to devalue the word theory. They imply that in a hierarchy of knowledge fact is higher up than a theory. This is a complete misunderstanding and is false.

To understand why, we must first find out what these phrases mean: theory and fact. A fact according to the English language dictionary is something shown to be true, to exist or to have happened. I will just add onto that, it is true as far as we can tell from all current evidences at this time. For example with gravity apples could start floating tomorrow which would change the facts of gravity, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

A theory (again using the dictionary) is a body of rules, ideas, principles and techniques that applies to a particular subject. In the world of science this means the rules, ideas, principles and techniques that applies to a particular known fact. To give a simple example: we know that orange juice is orange, this is a fact. The theory would explain why the orange juice is orange and not pink.

A commonly used example here is gravity. The fact of gravity is that when you stand on your driveway you are not going to float off into the sky. Everyone can agree on that as a fact, however the theory is why don't we float away? Several theories exist for gravity, the first was by Isaac Newton. His theory was nearly correct but was later tweaked by Albert Einstein and is now the most widely accepted theory.

So if we take the creationists point of view then gravity is just a theory, of course to say this would discredit you greatly. However creationists are doing this all the time in an attempt to discredit evolutionists. It's ironic how in doing so they are discrediting themselves. The way they use the word theory is very different to what it actually means.

Evolution is a fact. Almost all biologists recognise this and anyone who argues otherwise is either refusing evidence in front of them, or intentionally being ignorant and lying to themselves. We know that multicellular life is at least 800 million years old, we know there were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago and there are now, we know that dinosaurs existed and then became extinct. We know this with certainty.

We do not however, know with certainty how or why they came to exist. Scientists can create theories from available evidence. Here we see the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, it is very clear how the creationists use of the term 'just a theory' is untrue and dishonest.

This essay is not additional evidence for evolution, we do not need any more evidence we know it is a fact. What we do not know is the correct theory of evolution, but scientists continue to learn and will continue until we do know. This essay is simply a concise explanation of the fallacy of an overused argument used against evolution and is most certainly (despite what creationists might believe) not in any way an argument for creationism.

References cited:

http://www.talkorigins.org (20/09/2007)

http://www.howstuffworks.com (20/09/2007)

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Laurence Moran, Talkorigins, 1993

Recommended Reading/Sites:

http://www.rationalresponders.com

http://www.notjustatheory.com

http://www.talkorigins.org

strick09's picture

Another way they frequently

Another way they frequently misunderstand "theory" is by believing that: scientific hypothesis < scientific theory < scientific law

 

While it's true that a hypothesis IS less than a theory (in fact a theory is simply a hypothesis well-supported by experimentation and observation), a theory and a law are two separate things entirely.

 Scientific Law's typically show calculable or mathematical models for real-life occurences. The "Law of Gravity" for example, says that objects are attracted with a force proportional to the product of their masses (inversely proportional to the distance that separates them). 

Theories, on the other hand, attempt to explain WHY something is the way it is. The Theory of Gravity (the current, Einsteinian model) is that massive objects distort space/time in such a way that other objects are drawn towards them.

 It's entirely possible to have a scientific law that has no generally accepted theory. (i.e. one could observe the mathematical properties of gravitational acceleration without understanding WHY things are pulled towards the earth). In the case of Evolution, we still don't have any specific laws yet (or do we?). Although scientists have discovered metrics that govern the rate of protein evolution (warmer temperatures and smaller sizes cause more rapid growth).

[ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071004100013.htm ]