Show of hands, who actually knows what a scientific theory is?

Ooh! Ooh! Me!

Unfortunately, xtians love playing with semantics. Sometimes I think they have so many different translations of their Bible because they wanted to be able to flip between them.

Microevolution, changes within a kind of animal, is a fact. The story that takes the facts and says that evolution explains the origin of species is a theory - yes it has a few facts that lend it some support, but it is far from proven, thus cannot be called a fact or law. It would actually be more accurate to call it a working hypothesis, for one kind of animal has never been observed changing into a different kind, and there is very little fossil support for this concept. In order for something to achieve the level of theory, it must be testable or observable. You cannot test evolution of species in a short amount of time, because forcing it would negate the results, since in nature it supposedly takes millions of years. Which leaves observation - which would take a very lengthy time to observe, or a whole lot more fossil evidence that clearly shows a step-by-step progression between kinds (not story lines, but actual fossil series), with several instances required for it to become a true theory. This has never been observed. Thus at best evolutionary theory for the origin of species, scientifically speaking, is only a working hypothesis. As strictly a scientific theory, so is creationism and theistic evolution, I will agree, since neither is observed scientifically. But so far, the fossil evidence fits the latter 2 views better than secular evolutionary theory.

Also, there are a number of competing hypothesis about how evolution happened, the mechanics of it. And particularly on how life formed in the first place, which has bearing on the whole evolutionary theory. That is why there must remain a level of uncertainty in evolutionary theory, another reason why it is still closer to a working hypothesis than a fact. Same with gravity. It is a law, because it is observed, it is known to be associated with mass, and it can be measured and predicted. But there are even some elements of gravity which are theory: is it a wave or a particle, and other questions which have not yet been answered.

God bless.

The word "theory" has a different meaning in science than in common usage. Drop a hammer and if falls to the floor -- that's a fact. The theory of gravitation is the explanation of why it happened. The word "theory" does not imply a degree of uncertainty in science as it does in common usage.

I do, I do!

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

I do! But you can't see my hand raised, so I will have to reply in writing.

Please don't be a snark; it shows ill breeding. These sniffing, haughty questions serve little purpose other than afford R & S trolls yet one more chance to slap each other on the back in another self-congratulatory anti-Christian giggle fest.

Since we are all so good at quoting boilerplate definitions, let me remind you that:

"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

It is not possible to test the hypotheses of evolution, although it may be possible to observe some natural selection. Therefore,

evolution remains a theory rather than "fact" because it cannot be observed or replicated.

Gravity is an observable fact although we do not fully understand it. As to what causes it we can hypothesize. That is the difference.

And yes, I do have a college degree in biology.

Thank-you.

According to fundie science 101, gravity theory doesn't exist any more; it's been proven, so now it's all been replaced by Newton's law of universal gravitation. In fundie speak, theories are things which haven't been proven, and proof is a concept that exists in science, too, not just math.

It's something that includes description of the conditions that would falsify it.

So you specify what would prove it wrong.

I've called god belief a theory, but really there's nothing that could disprove it, cause they say there's a god no matter what.

I believe in the Big Bag Theory, which states that everything in the universe came out of a big bag, but ain't a theory either cause I don't want to state the conditions that would disprove it.

.

.

I am majoring in psychology and I read and study several different "theories"-they are subject to differ from scientist to scientist, psychologist to psychologist. They are not set in stone, and they do change and create arguments even between the professionals that come up with them. They emphasize "theory" and have been certain to express that theories are not fact.

I know the theory and I'm a Christan.

The gravity thing is not just a theory, it's a law. Not the example you want.

ME!

I have a B.A. in Anthropology

Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact

I believe in the Big Bang..

Bring on the thumbs down but the Quran knew about the Big Bang before any Scientist ever did..

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_01.ht...

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_05.ht...